TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ires?" The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee in this case is an individual deriving income from the manufacture and sale of insulated wire under the name and style of Khandelwal Wires being a proprietary concern. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1990-91 deductions were claimed under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act both at 20 per cent, of the profit from the alleged newly established industrial undertaking in a backward area. To consider the aforesaid claims, the Assessing Officer proceeded to ascertain relevant facts from the record and which revealed that up to the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee was a partner in a registered firm, namely, Khandelwal Associates, Mathura and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disallowed the claim of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act on the following grounds: On the basis of the aforesaid reasons the Assessing Officer concluded that since as the alleged new concern had been formed by the splitting up and reconstruction of a business already in existence and further there being a transfer of machinery and plant previously used in the alleged old concern, there was no justification to accept the claims for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I vis-a-vis the new concern. She, however, proceeded to allow on a different ground, the claim for deduction under section 80HH, namely, the assessment year under consideration being the 10th year of the old business, but denied the claim under section 80-I.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a number of Explanations and provisos and one Explanation is to the effect that where the machinery or plant previously used is transferred to a new business and if the value thereof does not exceed twenty per cent, of the total value of the machinery used in the said new business then condition (iii) above shall be deemed to be satisfied. The aforesaid Explanation was referred to by learned counsel for the proposition that even if it was to be assumed although not admitting that 'plant and machinery from the old unit had been transferred to the new unit then the value thereof did not exceed 20 per cent, of the total value of the plant and machinery of the new unit. The main submission was, however, to the effect that no item of plant and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent to the one manufactured earlier although both come under the category of 'wires and cables'. In annexure '8A' to the present order the points of distinction have been drawn up on behalf of the assessee and these do aptly support the view-point canvassed by learned counsel and there being no effective challenge or material in rebuttal placed on record by the Revenue represented by the Departmental Representative. Much stress has been laid by the Revenue on the similarity between the customers, employers and the commission agents of the old and the new units but in our opinion these on the facts of the present case are not at all valid, since the assessee in operating a 'new unit' has to fall back on his old contacts, customers as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or law as compared to the preceding assessment year i.e., 1990-91. Heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. No one appears on behalf of the assessee. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the alleged transferred assets did not exceed 20 per cent, of the total whether it be of the plant and machinery or the whole of the assets of the new unit. The Tribunal further held that the number of workers remained ten or more during a substantial part of the year and if the office workers are to be included the total number of workers were more than ten throughout the year. The Tribunal further found that the establishment of a new unit was at a....