Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tirupur Textiles (P) Ltd.

Thanikkachalam, J.—At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following four questions for the opinion of this Court under

s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payments made beyond 15th

December, 1977 should be treated as advance tax and should be taken into consideration for the purpose of levy of interest under s. 139(8) of the

IT Act, 1961 ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961

should be allowed in respect of a new unit at Bhavani wherein the assessee is doing certain processing work only ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the question whether the new unit at

Bhavani could be said to be engaged in the manufacture or production or articles and consequently whether the relief under s. 80J could be

granted ? and

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that extra shift allowance on plant and machinery

should be allowed taking into account the working of the concern as a whole instead of restricting the claim to the actual number of days during

which each item of plant and machinery worked ?

Insofar as question No. 4 is concerned, that was not pressed, when the tax case came up before us for final hearing by learned standing counsel

for the Department.

Insofar as question No. 1 is concerned, it relates to payments made on 15th December, 1977 and whether such payment should be treated as

advance tax and should be taken into consideration for purpose of levy of interest under s. 139(8) of the Act. A similar question came up for

consideration before this Court in New India Maritime Agencies P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, wherein this Court held that so long as

the payment was accepted, it could only be towards advance tax. Any payment made before the end of the accounting year for which assessment

was made should be taken as advance tax. Since the amount paid by the assessee was accepted by the ITO as advance tax and the amount paid

was over and above what was due by way of tax, no interest under s. 139(8) of the Act could be levied. In view of the decision cited supra, the

Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment made before 15th December, 1977 should be treated as advance tax for the purpose of s. 139(8)

of the Act. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the Department.

Insofar as question Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they go together. Question No. 2 relates to the relief under s. 80J of the Act. The point for

consideration is whether relief under s. 80J of the Act should be allowed in respect of a new unit at Bhavani, wherein the assessee is doing certain

processing work only. Question No. 3 relates to the point whether the new unit at Bhavani could be said to be engaged in the manufacture or

production of articles and consequently whether the relief under s. 80J of the Act could be granted.

The Department had granted relief under s. 80J of the Act for the asst. yr. 1977-78, treating that year as the year in which the unit began to

manufacture or produce articles. For the asst. yr. 1978-79, which is the second year, it was refused on the ground that the unit is only processing

but not manufacturing or producing articles and that even the five year period is already over. However, the CIT(A) granted the relief. Aggrieved,

the Department filed a second appeal before the Tribunal contending that the CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the mere processing of yarn

or cloth tantamounts to manufacture or production of cloth or any other article. In its order, the Tribunal pointed out that the facts set out in the

assessment and the appellate orders are not clear to show as to what exactly the unit is doing, but on the ground that inasmuch as the relief under s.

80J of the Act was granted for the first year, viz., for the asst. yr. 1977-78 it cannot be denied for the subsequent four years. The Tribunal

confirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). A ground was raised before the Tribunal that the mere processing of yarn or cloth would not amount to

manufacture or production of cloth or any other article. But, this ground was not dealt with by the Tribunal. It remains to be seen that in order to

get relief under s. 80J of the Act for a period of five years the assessee must establish all the conditions prescribed in s. 80J(4) of the Act and if

such conditions were not satisfied, relief cannot be granted under that section for all the five assessment years. Therefore, fulfilling of the conditions

prescribed in s. 80J(4) of the Act is the condition precedent for granting relief under that section. In the present case, the Department raised a

ground that the assessee has not satisfied one of the conditions prescribed under s. 80J(4) of the Act, viz., that the assessee is not engaged in the

manufacturing or production of the cloth. But that ground was not considered by the Tribunal, since according to the Tribunal, the order passed by

the authorities below were without full particulars. In such circumstances, we direct the Tribunal to consider this question and dispose of the appeal

on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In this view of the matter, we are not answering

question Nos. 2 and 3 and they are returned back to the Tribunal.

No costs.