1984 (8) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

High Court grants relief under section 80J for new product, machinery

The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that once the necessary conditions were met, including the distinct nature of the new product and ... New Industrial Undertaking Issues: Interpretation of section 80J of the Income-tax Act regarding eligibility for relief for a new industrial undertaking.In this case, the primary issue was whether the assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing 'Goliath Screw Caps,' qualified as a new industrial undertaking eligible for relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal initially directed the Income-tax Officer to reexamine the facts related to the new manufacturing activity and determine if the conditions under section 80J were met. The Income-tax Officer denied the relief, citing the absence of a separate factory building for the new machinery. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed, emphasizing that the crucial factors were whether the new product was distinct, new machinery was used, and fresh capital was invested. The Tribunal and the High Court concurred with this interpretation, stating that if these essential elements were established, including the distinct nature of the new product and the use of new machinery, the assessee would be entitled to the relief under section 80J.Another issue that arose was the scope of the Income-tax Officer's authority in assessing eligibility for relief under section 80J. The Income-tax Officer contended that the absence of a separate factory building for the new machinery disqualified the assessee from claiming the benefit. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer had overstepped his jurisdiction by imposing this additional requirement. They maintained that the earlier order of the Tribunal had settled the matter, and the only relevant considerations were the distinct nature of the new product, the use of new machinery, and the infusion of fresh capital. The High Court upheld this interpretation, emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer could not disregard the Tribunal's directive based on the presence of a separate factory building, as it was not a prerequisite established by law for claiming relief under section 80J.The final issue involved the interpretation of the Tribunal's earlier order and its implications on the assessment of eligibility for relief under section 80J. The High Court scrutinized the language used in the Tribunal's initial order and acknowledged that it might not have been entirely precise. However, the High Court deferred to the understanding of the author of the order, who interpreted it as indicating that if the essential facts favoring the assessee were proven, including the distinct nature of the new product and the use of new machinery, then section 80J(4) would also be satisfied. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that once the necessary conditions were met, the relief under section 80J should be granted, as per the Tribunal's earlier order and the subsequent decisions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal.