1992 (2) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee entitled to investment allowance for generator used in production

The court held that the assessee, a limited company in the beverages industry, was entitled to investment allowance on a generator used for power supply ... Investment Allowance Issues:Interpretation of law regarding investment allowance on generators under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Applicability of investment allowance to machinery or plant used for manufacturing or production purposes.Determining eligibility for investment allowance based on the Eleventh Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The case involved a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the eligibility of investment allowance on generators for the assessment year 1981-82. The primary issue was whether the assessee, a limited company deriving income from beverages, was entitled to investment allowance on a generator installed in its factory to supply power during electricity failure. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claim, stating that the generator provided indirect assistance during power failure and did not meet the requirements of section 32A of the Act.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that investment allowance was available for new machinery or plant used in manufacturing or production processes as per section 32A. The generator, being essential for power supply during production, was deemed eligible for investment allowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the purpose of the generator in the manufacturing process.A crucial aspect was the applicability of the Eleventh Schedule, which lists items excluded from investment allowance. Item No. 5 of the Schedule pertained to aerated waters manufactured using blended flavouring concentrates. The Revenue argued that the assessee's product fell under this item, making it ineligible for investment allowance. The Tribunal's decision was based on the ambiguity regarding the manufacturing process and the use of synthetic elements in producing aerated waters.The court highlighted the importance of clarifying whether the assessee's product involved the use of synthetic essences, as specified in the Explanation to item No. 5. The Tribunal's failure to delve deeper into this aspect led to uncertainty about the eligibility for investment allowance. The court remanded the case to the Tribunal for a detailed examination of the manufacturing process to determine if the product fell under item No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule.The court emphasized that the Explanation to item No. 5, inserted in 1987, aimed to provide clarity on the exclusionary criteria for investment allowance. The decision to remand the case to the Tribunal was based on the need to ascertain the nature of the assessee's product and its alignment with the Schedule's provisions. The judgment declined to answer the question directly, opting for a thorough review by the Tribunal to ensure accurate determination of eligibility.In conclusion, the court's decision focused on the specific interpretation of the law regarding investment allowance, the relevance of the Eleventh Schedule in determining eligibility, and the necessity for a detailed examination of the manufacturing process to establish the product's classification under the Schedule.