TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (9) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see in the present case is a civil contractor. In my opinion, the investment allowance is not admissible on account of following reasons : (a) The investment allowance is admissible to industrial undertakings only - whether small scale industrial undertakings or other industrial undertakings. Assessee in the present case is not industrial undertaking. It is a civil contractor firm, who is engaged in civil construction work for others. Essentially the assessee is providing his services/resources to the J.Ks in the construction of their factory building. (b) Even for argument's sake it is admitted that the assessee is a small scale industrial undertaking falling in cl. (b)(ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 32A, as the aggregate value of the machiner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim of the assessee under s. 32A of the Act. 4. In this background the learned senior Departmental Representative argued that the assessee was in the first instance not an industrial undertaking but a civil contractor. Secondly, even if it is accepted to be an industrial undertaking, it is a small scale industrial undertaking and hence being a contractor engaged in construction work is not entitled to get the benefit of investment allowance. He submitted that in the case of small scale industrial undertaking, the benefit is available to only those assessees who are engaged in the manufacturing or production of goods and not in the construction work. He pointed out that in the case of Mohd. Miyan, contractor, a copy of Tribunal's o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se decisions were against the assessee. He, however, cited the following cases in which the decisions had been given in favour of the proposition that the contractors were entitled to benefit of investment allowance : 1. CIT vs. N.C. Buddharaja & Co. 2. Shankar Construction Co. vs. CIT (1991) 94 CTR (Kar) 155 : (1991) 189 ITR 463 (Kar) 3. CIT vs. Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. (1991) 99 CTR (Ker) 204 : (1992) 193 ITR 674 (Ker) 4. CIT vs. Mahalinga Setty & Co. (1992) 102 CTR (Kar) 305 : (1992) 195 ITR 526 (Kar) 5. ITO vs. Mohd. Miyan ITA No. 1234/Jp/86 6. Progressive Engg. Co. vs. ITO (1983) 3 ITD 572 (Hyd) 7. ITO vs. Hydle Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (1983) 6 ITD 575 (Del) (SB) 8. Shah Construction Co. vs. ITO (1986) 26 TTJ (B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue without taking into account the distinctions pointed out by the ITO in his order regarding the treatment to be given to different assessees falling under cl. (ii) or cl. (iii) of s. 32A(2)(b) of the Act. In fact, in the case of Mohd. Miyan there is nothing to show that any one of these items were argued and the learned members of the Tribunal who had taken that decision had even observed that "the point is not free from doubt inasmuch as the assessee has not actually produced any article or thing. However, two Benches of the Tribunal in T. Venkateswara Rao & Co. vs. ITO (1983) Taxation 70(6)-80 and Progressive Engineering Co. vs. ITO (1983) Taxation (70) (6A)-23 (sic) has held that a firm doing business in a ballast material and ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....benefit of investment allowance. But this case was covered by sub-cl. (iii); it was not a case of small scale industrial undertaking which is covered under sub-cl. (ii) of s. 32A(2)(b). Similarly in the cases of CIT vs. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. and CIT vs. Mahalinga Setty & Co. the issues involved were under sub-cl. (iii). Shri Birla himself conceded that the issue that construction companies were not engaged in manufacturing or production of articles or things has already been decided against the assessee in the cases of R.S. Avtar Singh and J.S. Construction Co. by the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal. In these circumstances the only issue which remains to be decided is whether a civil construction work contractor even if it falls in the....