High Court rules cold storage operations not eligible for investment allowance under Income-tax Act

The High Court held that the assessee, S. B. Cold Storage Industries Pvt. Ltd., was not entitled to the investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the cold storage operations did not amount to "manufacture" or "production" of an article, as the primary purpose was preservation rather than creating a new commercial commodity. The court distinguished between processing and production, emphasizing the need for a new article to qualify. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the investment allowance to the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance u/s 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Definition and scope of "manufacture" and "production" in the context of cold storage operations.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Investment Allowance u/s 32A
The assessee, S. B. Cold Storage Industries Pvt. Ltd., claimed investment allowance u/s 32A for new plant and machinery installed in their cold storage plant, arguing that the operations amounted to "manufacture" or "production" of an article. The Income-tax Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal all rejected the claim, stating that the plant and machinery were used solely for storage and preservation, not for manufacturing or producing any article or thing.

Issue 2: Definition and Scope of "Manufacture" and "Production"
The assessee contended that storing potatoes in cold storage constituted "processing" and thus "production" within the meaning of section 32A. They cited several cases, including Addl. CIT v. Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 816 (All) and CIT v. Radha Nagar Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 66, which supported the view that cold storage operations amounted to processing of goods.

The Revenue argued that the processing did not result in a new article, and thus did not qualify as "production." They cited cases like North Bengal Stores Ltd. v. Board of Revenue [1938-50] 1 STC 157 (Cal) and CIT v. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 325 (Bom), emphasizing that the resultant product must be a different commercial commodity.

The court noted that the primary objective of cold storage is to preserve the original condition of potatoes, not to produce a new article. The court distinguished between "processing" and "production," stating that the two are not identical. The court held that the cold storage plant does not qualify as machinery or plant installed for the manufacture or production of any article or thing, and thus the assessee is not entitled to the investment allowance u/s 32A.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue, holding that the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance u/s 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was no order as to costs.

---