High Court Of Gujarat
CIT vs. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Tobacco Industries (P) Ltd.
Sections 80J(4)(iv), 1981FA 2(7)(c)
Asst. Year 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84
M.S. Shah & K.A. Puj, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 185 of 1988
26th June, 2002
B.B. Naik, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent
M.S. SHAH, J. :
In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions are referred for our opinion for the relevant assessment years as mentioned at the outset :
Asst. yrs. 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-company was engaged in manufacturing and processing activities and was, therefore, an industrial company?
Asst. yr. 1981-82
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-company was entitled to relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961 ?”
2. We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned counsel for the Revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee.
3. As far as the first question is concerned, there is no dispute about the fact that the assesseeâs business consists of crushing large tobacco leaves and cutting into smaller pieces, sieving them, i.e., after removing the dust and unwanted stems from the tobacco leaves, selling them to the Bidi manufacturers. In connection with another assessee carrying on the same business [Ashwinkumar Gordhanbhai & Bros. (P) Ltd.], this Court decided in CIT vs. Ashwinkumar Gordhanbhai & Bros. (P) Ltd. (1994) 122 CTR (Guj) 164 : (1995) 212 ITR 614 (Guj) : TC 24R.235 that the aforesaid business involves manufacturing or processing of goods and the assessee is, therefore, an industrial company. Following the aforesaid decision, our answer to the first question is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
4. Coming to the second question, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) who had based his decision in favour of the assessee for granting the relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1981-82 on the basis of his decision, i.e., appellate order for the asst. yr. 1980-81. The Tribunal found that there was no distinguishing feature and, therefore, the view of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1981-82 was also required to be confirmed. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, it appears to us that the question sought to be raised before us in respect of the relief under s. 80J merely involves an amount of Rs. 16,054 and the question whether the assessee is or is not employing more than 20 workers in his processing unit as envisaged under s. 80J(4)(iv) involves a disputed question of fact on which the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have given concurrent finding in favour of the assessee. In view of the above discussion, our answer to the second question is also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
5. The reference, accordingly, stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
[Citation : 258 ITR 727]