TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 1991-92 was made on March 31, 1994. The assessment for the assessment year 1992-1993 was made on March 31, 1995 and the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1993-94 was made on March 29, 1996. The impugned notices were issued on March 21, 2000. The petitioner set up new units at the tea garden for the period from 1991 to 1994. The question as to whether blending of tea is production or manufacture is debatable. There are authorities on both sides of the divide. As there was a debate on such a point, it cannot be said that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record requiring invocation of Section 154 of the Act of 1961. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the Tribunal has taken a view in its order dated November 30, 1992 that, the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing and production of tea and coffee. An appeal has since been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. Appeal is admitted on a question of law. Such appeal is pending. Therefore, according to him, the issue still being at large, it does not permit invocation of Section 154 of the Act of 1961. Relying upon 2011 Volume 338 Income Tax Report page 285 (Kerela) (TAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m, the impugned notices being without jurisdiction should be quashed. Learned advocate appearing for the revenue has submitted that, the writ petition is directed against show cause notices. The show cause notices are dated March 21, 2000. The writ petition was filed on March 27, 2000. The date of hearing of the show cause notices was March 28, 2000. According to him, the petitioner could have replied to the show cause notices and participated in the proceedings emanating out of the show cause notices rather than coming to the writ Court. It cannot be said that, the impugned notices suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (supra) was rendered under a different statute. The judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is binding upon the authorities. The decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court is binding upon the authorities. Therefore there is no infirmity in the issuance of the show cause notices. According to him, there is no debate on any issue. As to what constitutes a debatable issue, he has relied upon 1986 Volume 159 Income Tax Report page 362 (Cal) (Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Purtabpore Co. Ltd.). He has submitted that, the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned show cause notices, the authorities have invoked provisions of section 154 of the Act of 1961 in respect of the relevant assessment years on the strength of the ratio laid down in Apeejay (supra). It has proposed to withdraw deductions allowed under Section 80 I of the Act of 1961 as the petitioner is not engaged in the manufacture or production of any article at its units. Mixing and blending of tea leaves cannot be considered to be a manufacture or production of any article entitling the petitioner to deduction under section 80 I of the Act of 1961. In the facts of the present case, the assessing officer had allowed claims under section 80 HH and 80 I/80 IA of the Act of 1961 in the relevant assessment orders. Apeejay (supra) has held that, the blending of different kinds of tea carried on by an assessee does not constitute manufacture or production of articles or things within the meaning of section 80 J of the Act of 1961. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court followed Apeejay (supra) in Brooke Bond India Limited (supra) and held that, the assessee cannot be held to be a manufacturer or producer in the facts available. It had distinguished Brooke Bond Lipto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption on the profit derived by its 100 per cent export oriented unit engaged in blending, packing and export of tea bags and tea packets. The fact scenario obtaining in the present case is different. Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Private Ltd. (supra) has interpreted the expression 'machinery' and 'plant'. It has held that, where interpretation of words are required to arrive at a finding then, it cannot be said that, there exists any mistake apparent on the face of the record allowing invocation of Section 154 of the Act of 1961. In the present case, no further interpretation is required in view of the settled position of law rendered by Apeejay (supra). Md. Serajuddin & Bros. (supra) has held that, where, the issue is debatable, the same cannot be made a ground for rectification under Section 154 of the Act of 1961. Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) has held that, rectification is not permissible on a debatable issue. It has also held that, a decision by the Supreme Court does not obliterate the existence of conflict of opinion prior to it. In the present case, the mistake is sought to be rectified subsequent to the authoritative pronouncement of Apeejay (supra). Nitai Ch....