1987 (6) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icer declined to grant the relief. He held that the activity carried on by the assessee is only " decortication " which cannot be said to be " manufacturing activity " at all. " Decortication " is only a " processing activity " but not a " manufacturing activity ". Thus the assessee has failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of section 80HH. He also held that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in sub-section (5) of section 80HH by not filing the audited accounts and auditor's report along with the original return for 1979-80. He also held that the assessee's main factory is situated at Anantapur which is taken on lease where also its activity was decortication of groundnuts. The factory set up at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onstruction should not be given. The factory at Kadiri is a separate factory and it is not formed by reconstruction. Rs. 2 lakhs worth of machinery was purchased which was fixed in the factory. Capital has flown from the Anantapur factory. Separate books of account are maintained for Kadiri factory. He submitted that for assessment year 1984-85 deduction claimed under section 54D should have been allowed in full and no addition is warranted as capital gain as the entire amount has been invested in the new industrial undertaking set up at Gooty. The learned departmental representative submitted that decortication of groundnuts into kernel will not constitute manufacturing activity and it is only a processing activity. The Kadiri factory is f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as held to be a manufacturing activity. Just like that in the instant case groundnut is decorticated and the kernel got has been sold. Both cases are almost identical. Hence the above decision of the A.P. High Court equally applies to the case of decortication of groundnuts into kernel which would constitute a manufacturing activity. Similarly in Ganesh Trading Co.'s case paddy was converted into rice which was held to be a manufacturing activity. Thus in our view the assessee carries on manufacturing activity. It is an industrial undertaking in a backward area and a small scale undertaking and it is entitled to relief under section 80HH. In the assessment year 1979-80 though the audit certificate was not filed along with the original retur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been transferred to the Kadiri factory. Thus in our view the Kadiri factory is not set up by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence. In Textile Machinery Corpn. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 the Supreme Court held that for the reconstruction of an existing business there must be transfer of the assets of the existing business to the new industrial undertaking. For the purpose of section 15C the industrial unit set up must be new in the sense that new plants and machinery are erected for producing either the same commodities or some distinct commodities. If an undertaking is not formed by the reconstruction of the old business that undertaking will not be denied the benefit of section 15C merely because it goes to ....