Appeal partially allowed, Commissioner's decision upheld. Clarification on 'employs' in tax relief section.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision on both issues. The disallowance claimed under section 80HH was dismissed as the reasons provided for denial were deemed insufficient. Regarding the interpretation of the term 'employs' in sub-clause (iv) of section 80HH(2), it was clarified that workers engaged in job work or piece work were not considered employees, leading to the denial of the relief. The judgment provides detailed analysis on the conditions under section 80HH and the distinction between employees and independent contractors for tax relief purposes in industrial undertakings.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance claimed under section 80HH.
2. Interpretation of the term 'employs' in sub-clause (iv) of section 80HH(2) regarding the condition of employing workers in an industrial undertaking.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The first issue in this case pertains to the disallowance claimed under section 80HH. The Income-tax Officer initially denied the relief on the basis that the business was formed by splitting up an existing business and no workers were employed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with this reasoning, stating that the reasons provided did not justify the denial of the claim. The Commissioner held that the late filing of the audit report and the splitting up of the business were not sufficient grounds for disallowance. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner, emphasizing that the audit report was eventually filed, and the objection raised under section 80HH(2)(ii) had no merit. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the first ground of disallowance.

2. The second issue revolves around the interpretation of the term 'employs' in sub-clause (iv) of section 80HH(2), which requires an industrial undertaking to employ a certain number of workers. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under section 80HH as the condition of employing workers was not fulfilled. The assessee argued that they were giving job work to artisans who were paid for preparing jewelry as per the assessee's requirements. The Tribunal delved into the distinction between a servant and an independent contractor, highlighting that an employer-employee relationship necessitates control over the worker's manner of work. It was clarified that in the case of job work or piece work, where payment is based on output, the worker is considered an independent contractor, not an employee. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, stating that workers engaged in job work or piece work were not employees of the assessee, and thus, the condition in clause (iv) of section 80HH(2) was not met.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision on both issues. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the conditions under section 80HH and clarifies the distinction between employees and independent contractors in the context of claiming tax relief for industrial undertakings.

---