TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (6) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound was that they had started an industrial undertaking in a backward area. The industrial undertaking, according to them, was the repairing of the barges. The ITO appears to have accepted that the assessee has complied with the requirements of that section, except the conditions mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section. According to him, the assessee's activity of manufacture or production was started before 31-12-1970, and, therefore, they were not entitled to the deduction. He also relied on the facts that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80J, in respect of the same activity for the assessment year 1971-72, which shows that the manufacturing activity had started before 30-12-1970. He rejected the claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration. For this purpose, he relied on the decision in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. [1980] 121 ITR 212 (Ori.). Shri Patil for the assessee supported the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submitted that the fact shows there was no manufacturing activity before 31-12-1970. He pointed out that in order to be eligible for deduction under section 80J, it is not necessary that manufacturing activity should be for the whole year. In any case, he submitted that the Tribunal which went into the question of section 80J has not given any findings being adverse to the assessee on this point. With regard to the bill of Rs. 18,895 he submitted that no manufacturing activity reflected therein. Alternatively, he submitted that at best, the assessee'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n before us that the repairing work and manufacturing activity are an integral part of one activity. Once this is conceded, it is not necessary to see further whether the activity pertained to the manufacturing part or to the repairing part. It would, therefore, be seen that the manufacturing activity taken as a whole had been in existence before the crucial date of 31-12-1970. Thus, the assessee becomes ineligible for the deduction. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) had examined the bill of Rs. 18,895 and had considered the individual items therein, to find out whether those items reflected any manufacturing activity. Such an approach is not correct on the admitted position that the activities contained in the bill and the manufacturing act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est on the ground that there are circumstances under which the levy of interest could be waived as per the rules. The Karnataka High Court has held that a hearing must be given before the interest could be levied. 8. They were considering specifically the levy of interest under sections 215, 216 and 217. We are here concerned with the levy of interest under section 139. On this point, there is a decision of the Karnataka High Court (Mysore as it was then called) in the case of Indian Telephone Industries Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [1972] 86 ITR 566. Two contentions had been raised by the assessee in that case : (i) that the levy of interest was permissible only on an application made by the assessee, and (ii) a hearing should be gi....