Cit Vs. Allied Constructions Co. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: a.n. mahajan, for the applicant. head note: income tax investment allowance--industrial undertakingassessee engaged in execution of civil contract jobsassessee derived income from execution of civil contract job and claimed deduction of investment allowance under section 32a. ao did not allow any investment allowance as he was of the view that assessee was not an industrial undertaking. cit(a) allowed the claim of the assessee which had been confirmed by the tribunal. held: activity of civil execution or civil construction does not amount to manufacture nor any article was produced. therefore, the assessee was not an industrial undertaking, and was not entitled for any investment allowance. income tax act, 1961 s.32a in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & prakash krishna, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderthe income tax appellate tribunal, allahabad has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', for opinion to this court:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking' within the meaning of section 32a of the income tax act, 1961 and therefore investment allowance was allowable to the assessee?'2. the reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83.briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are that the respondent derived income from execution of one contract job and claimed deduction of investment allowance under section 32a of the act. however, the assessing officer did not allow any investment allowance as he was of the view that the respondent is not an industrial undertaking as per the provisions of the act. the cit(a) had allowed the claim of the assessee for investment allowance which order has been confirmed by the tribunal.3. we have heard sri a.k. mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue. nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee.4. the question raised in the present reference has been settled by the apex court in the case of cit v. n.c. budharaja & co. ltd. : [1993]204itr412(sc) . the apex court has held that the activity of civil construction does not amount to manufacture nor any article is produced in it, therefore, it is not an industrial undertaking and the respondent is not entitled for investment allowance under section 32a of the act.5. respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the negative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. however, there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this Court:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking' within the meaning of section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore investment allowance was allowable to the assessee?'

2. The Reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are that the respondent derived income from execution of one contract job and claimed deduction of investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. However, the assessing officer did not allow any investment allowance as he was of the view that the respondent is not an industrial undertaking as per the provisions of the Act. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim of the assessee for investment allowance which order has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

3. We have heard Sri A.K. Mahajan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the revenue. Nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee.

4. The question raised in the present Reference has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. Ltd. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) . The Apex Court has held that the activity of civil construction does not amount to manufacture nor any article is produced in it, therefore, it is not an industrial undertaking and the respondent is not entitled for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act.

5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the negative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.