High Court denies referral of questions under IT Act. Tribunal rules on manufacturing vs. civil engineering.

The High Court rejected the assessee's application for referring questions of law to the High Court under section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal's findings, based on evidence and legal precedents, determined that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing intermediary products but in civil engineering works. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the assessee is engaged in manufacturing or supplying intermediary products.
2. Whether the assessee's activities involve manufacturing any article or thing.
3. Whether the equipment purchased and installed was used for manufacturing any article or thing.
4. Whether the Tribunal's findings are based on evidence.
5. Whether the Tribunal ignored relevant material or relied on extraneous factors.
6. Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance u/s 32A.

Summary:

Issue 1: Manufacturing or Supplying Intermediary Products
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not manufactured or supplied any intermediary products in the execution of civil engineering works. The activities carried out by the assessee, such as earthwork, masonry, and concrete work, did not involve manufacturing intermediary products. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was engaged in civil engineering works, not in manufacturing intermediary products.

Issue 2: Manufacturing Any Article or Thing
The Tribunal held that the works undertaken by the assessee, including woodwork and miscellaneous items, did not involve the activity of manufacturing any article or thing. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on the nature of the work executed, which was primarily construction-related.

Issue 3: Equipment Utilization for Manufacturing
The Tribunal found that the equipment purchased and installed during the assessment year, such as quarry equipment magazine and voltage stabilizer, was not utilized for manufacturing any article or thing. The equipment was used for storage of explosives and maintaining voltage stability, necessary for construction operations, not for manufacturing.

Issue 4: Tribunal's Findings Based on Evidence
The Tribunal's findings that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing any intermediary products were based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal examined the nature of the assessee's activities and the use of equipment, concluding that these did not constitute manufacturing.

Issue 5: Ignoring Relevant Material or Relying on Extraneous Factors
The Tribunal did not ignore relevant material or rely on extraneous factors. It based its decision on the nature of the assessee's activities and the use of equipment, consistent with the evidence and relevant legal precedents.

Issue 6: Entitlement to Investment Allowance u/s 32A
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance u/s 32A of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co., which clarified that construction activities do not amount to manufacturing or producing articles. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities were construction-related, not manufacturing, and thus did not qualify for investment allowance.

Conclusion:
The High Court rejected the assessee's application u/s 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for referring the questions of law to the High Court. The Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and consistent with legal precedents, and no referable question of law arose. The petition was rejected without any order as to costs.

---