9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee declared GP at 10.35 per cent for the year under consideration which was lower than the G.P. declared at 12 per cent for earlier year. The ITO noted that the firm had not maintained day to day stock register of colours and chemicals and also that the books of accounts were also not completed. The ITO therefore, made an addition of Rs. 2,500 to the profits as disclosed by the books of accounts. In appeal the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition on almost the same grounds which found favour with the ITO. 4. At the hearing it could not be assailed on behalf of revenue that almost under similar circumstances the ITO had made an addition of an equal amount to the profits of the assessee in asst. yr. 1979-80 but the same was deleted by the Tribunal in second appeal. The order of the Tribunal dt. 28th Jan., 1985 was also produced before us. On a perusal of that order we find that the facts were almost the same before the Tribunal in asst. yr. 1979-80 when an addition of Rs. 2,500 had fallen for consideration of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was pleased to delete the addition from the total income of the assessee. Since we find that facts of this year are quite identical to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors employed by the assessee-firm were labourers who do the job on the basis of turn out of the work and payment was made to them on the basis of the work down by them. 9. The ITO did not feel satisfied with the reply submitted by the assessee-firm and therefore rejected its claim for 80J relief. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to the CIT(A). 10. The learned CIT(A) agreed in principle that assessee's not claiming 80J relief in the initial year did not debar it to claim the same relief in the year under consideration. The learned CIT(A) further does not appear to have much disputed the character of the assessee-firm as an industrial undertaking for the purposes of entitlement to the 80J relief. Further, he does not appear to have been much impressed by ITO's disentitling the assessee from 80J relief on the ground that the provisions of s. 80J(6A) were not complied with at the time of filing the original return though the same were complied with subsequently when the revised return was filed. However, the learned CIT(A) found much force in ITO's views that neither the contractors nor the labourers engaged by the contractors to do the work entrusted to them by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aid of power, or employs twenty or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on without the aid of power." It may be noted that in the language of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (4) of s. 80J the term 'employs' has been used by the legislature. It need not be emphasised that the exemptions or concessions contemplated by s. 80J are to be strictly construed. In order to be entitled to exemption or concession an assessee must strictly come within the terms of these provisions. But at the same time it is also to be kept in mind that in constructing these provisions one must construe them reasonably in the context of the purpose for which they have been introduced. It is to be remembered that it is a well cannon of construction that the provisions relating to exemption or concession must, as far as possible, be liberally construed and in favour of the assessee provided in doing so no violence is done to the language used. As has been observed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satellite Engg. Ltd. the provisions of s. 80J must be interpreted in consonance with avowed object of the legislature in enacting those provisions and to further these and not to defeat them. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a particular employer has ten or more workers on his muster roll. a few of whom may not report for work on a particular day. This is not the case of the assessee before us, and we are not required to consider any such case and the question whether such employer can be said to have satisfied the requirement prescribed in s. 84(2)(iv) does not arise in this reference. To sum up: (1) Under s. 84(2)(iv) it is not required that the new undertaking has employed ten or more workers throughout the entire period for which relief is claimed under s. 84. (2) This, however, does not mean that it is sufficient if ten or more workers have been employed for a few or some of the days of this period. A fair reading of the provisions would require that in order to qualify for relief under s. 84 and satisfy the requirement under s. 84(2)(iv) the undertaking must have employed ten or more workers substantially during the period for which relief is claimed. This is essentially a question of arriving at a proper conclusion from the facts ascertained and there can be no hard and fast rule whether this requirement is satisfied if ten workers or more are employed for 50 per cent of this period or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
