COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs FREESEKING INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

On being moved by the revenue u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, New Delhi:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to development rebate at higher rate of 25 per cent in respect of machinery used in the manufacturing of steel castings and forgings even if it was an intermediary stage in the industry ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction u/s 80-I is admissible in respect of profits attributable to the manufacturing of articles even where such manufacturing process as listed in the Sixth Schedule, is an intermediary stage in the industry ?"

Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessed a private limited company claimed higher rate of development rebate on the machinery used by the assessee, as at the relevant point of time, the assessed carried on the business of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, in the process of which it also carried on activity of steel casting for the manufacture of compressors for air-conditioning and refrigeration machinery. The assessed claimed that profits arising in respect of the activity of steel casting would be eligible for relief u/s 80-I of the Act. It was also claimed that profits in respect of this activity would be eligible for development rebate @ 25 per cent. Reference was made to item 11 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act, wherein reference has been made to priority industry. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim. Matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The said authority upheld the disallowance. Matter was taken in appeal before the Tribunal who allowed the claim referring to some earlier cases decided by it.

On being moved reference has been made, as set out above.

We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. There is no appearance for the assessee.

Question whether intermediate product would qualify for rebate of development at higher rate has come up for consideration on several occasions. The Apex Court had also considered the question relating to manufacture and construction business Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa and Others Vs. N.C. Budharaja and Company and Others, ) wherein relevant parameters were laid down. This court had also an occasion to deal with the matter in Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, . Following the reasons indicated by the Apex Court in N.C. Budharaja & Co.s case (supra) and by this court in Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd.s case (supra), we answer the first question in the negative in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.

In view of this answer, it is not necessary to answer the second question.

Reference is, accordingly, disposed of.