TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (4) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgents. The assessee had installed in this year new machines costing Rs. 8,46,848 for the manufacture of detergents and machines valued at Rs. 7,39,276 for the manufacture of washing soap. Weighing scales were purchased for Rs. 1,51,848 and electric installations were set up costing Rs. 1,65,529. The Assessing Officer allowed Investment allowance on the new machines costing Rs. 8,46,848 only which had been installed for the manufacture of detergents. No investment allowance was given on the new machine used for the manufacture of soap and also on the new weighing scales and the electrical installations used for the washing soap as well as the detergents. In the assessee's appeal, the CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance made at Rs. 2,73,05....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, in this year, allowed investment allowance on the entire plant and machinery on the ground that the word " soap " occurring in item No. 4 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule was not washing soap but only toilet soap. The revenue is aggrieved with the said finding. 13. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued before us in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1984-85 that the revenue authorities have taken a wrong view in the matter. He has pointed out that item No. 20 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act was omitted by the Finance Act, 1981 w.e.f 1-4-1982. The said item No. 20 read as under : " Item 20--Organic surface active agents ; surface active preparations and washing preparations wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d " soap " occurring in item No. 4 does not specify whether it was a toilet soap or a washing soap. Since the word is very general in nature, it must mean soap of every kind. The ld. D.R. has submitted that the preceding words are altogether of a different category and nature and therefore, the last following word " soap " cannot be called to be an article or thing for cleaning teeth. Even if " soap " is said to mean toilet soap only, it again is not an article or thing for cleaning the teeth and, therefore, the rule of ejusdem generis is not applicable at all. Soap is an article quite different in character and nature from the preceding three articles mentioned in item No. 4. The ld. D.R. has vehemently contended that where the language wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vourable to the assessee should be adopted. The Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT v. Satellite Engg. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 208, has observed that it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the Legislature. The Supreme Court again had an occasion to examine the question of interpretation of statutes in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597. It was held that a statutory provision must be construed, if possible, so that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) E.L.T. 431 (Delhi). There the matter regarding toilet soap was under examination regarding the tariff of central excise. There also it was held to be different from the laundry soap. 19. The learned D.R. has also invited our attention to certain decisions regarding interpretation of statutes. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Ramachandra Mardaraj Deo v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 667. It was held there that in the absence of there being anything contrary to the context, the language of a statute should be interpreted according to the plain dictionary meaning of the terms used therein. On the strength of the said observation, the learned D.R. has submitted that the word " soap " occurring in item No. 4 ca....