High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Varun Processors (P) Ltd.
Sections 32A, 260A
Asst. Year 1987-88, 1988-89
Jawahar Lal Gupta & Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 31 of 2001
19th September, 2001
Counsel Appeared
R.P. Sawhney, with Rajesh Bindal, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. :
In this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue maintains that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court :
“Whether the process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, etc. amounted to manufacture of an article or thing within the meaning of s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, and whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the value of the machinery installed and used for the purposes of such business ?”
The Tribunal has found that the respondent/assessee was entitled to claim deduction on account of the unabsorbed investment allowance of Rs. 8,34,978 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89.
The short contention raised by Mr. R.P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, is that the matter is pending before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 17881 of 1993.
After hearing learned counsel for the Revenue, we find that the Emprie Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (1986) 162 ITR 864 (SC) : TC 28R.422, it was, inter alia, held that bleaching, dyeing and printing feel within the expression “manufacture” so as to make it exigible to the levy of excise duty. Following this decision, a Full Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Sovrin Knit Works (1992) 109 CTR (P&H) 310 : (1993) 199 ITR 679 (P&H), held that dyeing, bleaching, printing and embroidering of grey cloth constitute production and manufacture under the IT Act, 1961, so as to entitle the assessee to claim deduction on account of investment allowance.
In view of these binding precedents, we find that no substantial question of law arises. Resultantly, no ground for admission of the appeal exists. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
[Citation : 254 ITR 564]