Manufacture of mild steel products qualified for tax incentives, and reassessment based on denial of that relief was unjustified.

Re-rolling of mild steel rods, bars and rounds was treated as manufacture within the statutory expression "iron and steel (metal)" in Schedule V, so the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-I and the higher development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i). As the relief was legally available on the merits, reopening under section 147(b) based on disallowance of that deduction was not justified. Both questions were answered in favour of the assessee, and the reference was decided against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee, engaged in re-rolling of mild steel products, was entitled to deduction under section 80-I and higher rate of development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) as a priority industry. (ii) Whether reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) was justified when the deduction under section 80-I had originally been allowed.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee, engaged in re-rolling of mild steel products, was entitled to deduction under section 80-I and higher rate of development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) as a priority industry.

Analysis: The controlling principle was supplied by the Supreme Court decision holding that mild steel rods, bars and rounds are treated as finished forms of metal and that manufacture of such products falls within the expression "iron and steel (metal)" in Schedule V to the Income-tax Act, 1961. On that basis, the activity qualifies as manufacture or production of articles or things specified in the Schedule, entitling the assessee to the statutory incentives.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-I and to the higher rate of development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) was justified when the deduction under section 80-I had originally been allowed.

Analysis: Since the assessee's claim to deduction under section 80-I was legally sustainable on the merits, the reassessment action founded on disallowance of that relief could not stand.

Conclusion: The reassessment under section 147(b) was not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered against the Revenue and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the manufacture of mild steel rods, bars or rounds falls within the statutory description of iron and steel (metal) in Schedule V, the assessee is entitled to the associated deduction and development rebate benefits, and reassessment cannot be sustained on the basis of disallowance of such legally available relief.

---