AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramanujam, J.—The Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to state a case, referring the following two questions as
arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court, namely :
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the
investment allowance of Rs. 25,607 on the plant and machinery used for the purpose of ginning cotton ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances having regard to the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the ginning
of cotton results in the manufacture of any article or thing mentioned u/s 32A of the Income Tax Act ?
The assessee runs a ginning factory besides having other business. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee
claimed relief under s. 32A of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of investment in plant and machinery in the ginning factory. The assessee claimed
investment allowance in respect of sums of Rs. 92,026 representing the cost of power generation and Rs. 9,500 being the cost of electric motor.
The assessing officer gave relief in a sum of Rs. 25,607, being 25% of the cost of machinery that could be allowed as a deduction under s. 32A.
The claim was based on the view that the ginning of cotton amounted to manufacture as contemplated by s. 32A of the Act.
Subsequently, on the basis of an audit note pointing out that investment allowance could not be given in regard to the ginning factory, the
Commissioner initiated revisional proceedings under s. 263 as the grant of investment allowance was considered to be prejudicial to the Revenue.
Before the Commissioner the assessee contended that ginning of cotton amounted to manufacture and, therefore, he is entitled to investment
allowance under s. 32A. The Commissioner rejected that contention, holding the ginning of cotton did not involve production of any article and
therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim any investment allowance.
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, held on the basis of
the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chandu Lal Kishori Lal and Others, , that ginning of cotton results in manufacture
and that, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed this reference application, seeking a reference, on the above two questions.
Thus, on the facts stated above, the only question that arises here is, whether the ginning of cotton amounts to manufacture as contemplated by
s. 32A of the Act. The Supreme Court has, in the case referred to above, specifically held that ginning process is a manufacturing process, that by
a manufacturing process the cotton and cotton seeds are separated, that the seeds so separated cannot be treated as cotton itself or part of the
cotton and the process has resulted in the manufacture of two different commercial goods, though before the manufacturing process the seeds
might have been part of the cotton itself. Though that decision of the Supreme Court was rendered with reference to s. 15 of the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956, the reasoning for holding ginning process to be a manufacturing of the Supreme Court that ginning of cotton is manufacture, we have to
hold that the ginning process is a manufacture. As the assessee has ginned cotton kappas and the seeds had been separated from the cotton, it is to
be taken to be a manufacture though not a production. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the Tribunal in this case is in accord with
the view taken by the Supreme Court that ginning amounts to a manufacturing process. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the relief under s.
32A. We do not think there is any warrant for referring the questions sought to be referred. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.