Partial appeal success; Disallowance issue remanded for review; Investment Allowance claim rejected.

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of disallowance under section 37(2A) was remanded back to the assessing authority for re-examination. The rejection of the Investment Allowance claim in relation to a computer installed by the assessee was upheld, as the activities did not meet the required conditions for claiming Investment Allowance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of disallowance under section 37(2A)
2. Rejection of the claim for Investment Allowance in respect of a computer installed by the assessee

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Disallowance under Section 37(2A):

The first issue concerns the computation of disallowance under section 37(2A). The Assessing Authority identified Rs. 1,65,846 as sales promotion expenditure, with Rs. 1,48,750 deemed as entertainment expenditure. Additionally, Rs. 84,926 was shown as export department expenditure but was also considered entertainment expenditure. Thus, the total entertainment expenditure was Rs. 2,33,676, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 2,28,676 after a statutory deduction of Rs. 5,000.

On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) agreed that most of the expenditure at the Head Office and branches in Delhi, Bombay, Bangalore, and Calcutta was for providing tea, coffee, etc., to visitors and customers, amounting to Rs. 2,21,490, and upheld the disallowance to this extent.

On further appeal, the assessee argued that part of the expenditure related to staff and should be allowed. However, this submission was not raised at earlier stages. The Tribunal referred to its previous order for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, where a similar issue was remanded back to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication. For uniformity, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the assessing authority for re-examination.

2. Rejection of the Claim for Investment Allowance:

The second issue pertains to the rejection of the claim for Investment Allowance on a computer installed by the assessee. The company installed HCL system 4 computers in June 1981, costing Rs. 9,51,321, and claimed Investment Allowance. The assessee argued that it was a small-scale industry and produced articles or things, listing various activities like preparation of catalogues, registration of orders, and printing of invoices.

The Assessing Authority rejected the claim, stating that the computer was a data processing machine installed in the office, making it ineligible for Investment Allowance under the Eleventh Schedule. The CIT(Appeals) concurred, noting that the value of plant and machinery exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs and that the computer was used for office work, not manufacturing articles or things.

The assessee contended that it maintained a complete data center and could be registered as a small-scale industry, with the value of plant and machinery not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs. However, the Tribunal agreed with the department that the letter from the Ministry of Industry was not relevant and that the aggregate value of machinery and plant exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the assessee did not qualify as a small-scale industry.

The Tribunal emphasized that the produced items must be commercial commodities marketed by the assessee. The listed activities were internal accounting tasks, not commercial products. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases, noting that the assessee's activities did not involve manufacturing or producing articles for sale.

The Tribunal also reviewed its previous decision for the assessment year 1981-82, which remanded the issue due to insufficient materials. However, for the current year, all necessary materials were considered. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not entitled to Investment Allowance, as the activities did not meet the required conditions.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of disallowance under section 37(2A) remanded back to the assessing authority and the rejection of the Investment Allowance claim upheld.

---