Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR/141/1991

AI Insights

The case revolves around Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., which sought tax relief under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a substantial expansion of its caustic soda production facility. The Income Tax Officer initially denied the relief, categorizing the expansion as substantial rather than the establishment of a new industrial undertaking. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the High Court of Gujarat, upon review, determined that the expansion constituted a new industrial undertaking due to the significant investment in new machinery and the separate industrial license obtained, leading to a distinct increase in production capacity.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 807717 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT, Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Broach District Cooperative Cotton Sales, Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Associated Cement Company, CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd., Municipal Commissioner, Chinchwad New Town Township Municipal Council v. Century Enka Ltd., CIT v. Premier Cotton Mills Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M PARIKH
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Income Tax; Industrial Undertaking; New Industrial Unit; Substantial Expansion; Tax Relief
• Section: 256(1); 80-I

Judgement Text

"ITR/141/1991 1/25 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 141 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD. - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JP SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1, MR KM PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 12/03/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) ITR/141/1991 2/25 JUDGMENT The Income T ax Appellate T ribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income T ax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to relief u/s.80-I.” Facts shortly stated are as under :- The Assessment Year concerned is 1982-83. The relevant Accounting Year being Financial Year 1981-82. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing caustic soda primarily and other chemicals. The production in plant was 34000 M.T onnes. The assessee acquired a new industrial license and a new letter of intent for substantial expansion of the production capacity of caustic soda from existing 37425 M.T onnes to 70425 M.T onnes. T welve new cells were installed for this purpose. The assessee incurred expenditure of Rs.7.5 crore towards new machinery and plant added to the existing plant. The assessee claimed that this being a new industrial undertaking, relief in respect of the profit attributable to the same should be granted as provided under Section 80-I of the Act. This claim came to be rejected by the Income T ax Officer holding that this was a case of substantial expansion and hence the benefit was not available. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income T ax (Appeals), who concurred with the Income T ax Officer. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the T ribunal and the T ribunal also confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income T ax (Appeals). The T ribunal held that since it is expansion of the same manufacturing unit, the assessee will not be entitled to the benefits of Section 80-I of the Act. We may quote the relevant paragraphs of the T ribunal's order as under :- ITR/141/1991 3/25 JUDGMENT “We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned representatives and have also gone through the entire material and documents to which our attention was drawn during the course of hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd.(supra) has held that a new activity launched by the assessee by establishing new plant and machinery by investing substantial funds may produce the same commodities of the old business or it may produce some other distinct marketable products, even commodities which may feed the old business. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that one thing is certain that the new undertaking must be an integral unit by itself wherein articles are produced and such unit fulfills either conditions prescribed u/s.13(c) of the old Act. Thus the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. whether the new unit can be considered as an integral unit by itself or in other words can the said unit function independently by itself. In the present case the learned CIT(A) in para 37 has observed that the authorized representative of the assessee conceded that new project commissioned during the year, would not be able to function on its own and in fact it was merely an expansion of the old unit to which 72 cells were added to increase the production capacity substantially. The working of claim u/s.80I has been made by the assessee in respect of profit from additional 72 cells put into operation from October 1981 as per the following calculations : “Original cells installed 26 x 12 = 312 Additional cells installed in 1981-82 12 x 6 = 72 ----- 384 === Cells Cells Assessable profit 384 72 Rs.297.71 lakhs = Rs.55.82 lakhs claim u/s.80I at 25% of Rs.55.82 lakhs = 13.96 lakhs i.e. = 14.00 lakhs ” The correspondence contained in application for grant of licence and necessary permission from various concerning departments also reveal that all these authorities considered it a case of substantial expansion of the existing unit. It has not been established by the assessee by bringing conclusive and clinching evidence to prove that the said new unit could independently produce the goods without taking the assistance of the existing plant and machinery of the old unit. The CIT(A) ITR/141/1991 4/25 JUDGMENT has given detailed reasons in support of his conclusion that the said expansion only envisaged the maximum utilization of the existing plant and machinery and, therefore, in substance this was an expansion of existing industry and cannot be treated as a new industrial undertaking for the purposes of sec.80I. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the findings given by the learned CIT(A) in this regard requires no interference. Hence this ground taken by the assessee is rejected.” In the background of the above undisputed facts, the question has been referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income T ax Act, 1961 as regards the entitlement to relief under Section 80-I of the Act. At this stage, we find it appropriate to state the grounds on which the assessee claimed benefit to relief under Section 80-I of the Act before the authorities. According to the assessee, relief under Section 80-I of the Act would be admissible in view of the following :- 1. The company has separate letter of intent for the said Industrial Undertaking. 2. The company has separate Industrial licence for the said Industrial Undertaking. 3. The company spent over Rs.7.5 crores for putting up the Plant and Machinery necessary for the purpose. 4. It is not formed by splitting up, or reconstruction of a business already in existence. 5. It is not formed by T ransfer to a new business of Machinery or Plant previously used for any purpose. 6. It manufactures articles, not being any article or thing specified in the list in Eleventh Schedule. 7. The Undertaking employs more than ten workers in a manufacturing process carried on with aid of power. 8. The said Industrial Undertaking is not formed as a result of reconstruction or revival of the business. ITR/141/1991 5/25 JUDGMENT 9. The production capacity of Undertaking increased from 37425 M.T onnes to 70425 M.T onnes of Caustic Soda. 10.Production and Profit of the New Industrial Undertaking is ascertainable. I. Contentions on behalf of the Assessee : Learned counsel Mr.J.P .Shah appearing for the assessee submitted that the object behind giving the relief to industrial undertakings by Section 80-I of the Act is to encourage the increase in overall industrial production of the country. Mr.Shah would contend that it would be travesty of law and justice as well to hold that inspite of substantial expansion of the industrial production in the existing unit i.e. almost double that investment of about Rs.7 crore, the assessee will not be entitled to the relief on the ground that it cannot be treated as a new unit. Learned counsel would further contend that if the assessee establishes a separate independent unit increasing the overall production by just about 10% only of the capacity of the existing units, then in that case, it would be entitled to the relief but, in a case of substantial expansion of almost double the quantity in the existing units, then in that case, the relief is being refused. According to the learned counsel, the interpretation which is sought to be made by the authorities in this regard is completely contrary to the policy of the department. Learned counsel Mr.Shah invited our attention to Circular No.68(1)-D.T./50 issued by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi dated 1st April 1950, wherein the Chairman of the Board pointed out: “... ... I have honour to state that it is the policy of the Government to give an interpretation to the words “New Industrial Undertaking” in Section 15C of the Income-tax Act, so that in all bona fide cases the concession would be ITR/141/1991 6/25 JUDGMENT admissible ... ... The question is largely one of facts of each particular case. The broad principle which will, however, be borne in mind in this connection that which are calculated to make a substantial addition to the existing output... ... Minor extensions of the existing undertaking and replacements of the existing installed capacity would be of course, not be eligible for the concession...” Learned counsel further submitted that the T ribunal committed an error of law in recording a finding that the assessee's case is of substantial expansion of the existing unit. He would submit that the T ribunal has also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not been able to establish and prove by adducing cogent, convincing and clinching evidence that the new unit is capable of independently producing goods without the help of the existing plant and machinery of the old unit. Learned counsel would also contend that when an existing industrial undertaking is substantially expanded and the manner of such expansion is such that the newly installed plant, machinery and other facilities such as factory buildings, godowns, etc when taken together are capable of being regarded as an industrial undertaking, the requirements of Sections are met. Learned counsel lastly contended that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. He would submit that having regard to the object with which the provision of Section 80-I of the Act has been enacted, it is apparent that liberal construction should be given to the language of the provision. In support of the submissions, learned counsel Mr.Shah has placed reliance on the following decisions :- ITR/141/1991 7/25 JUDGMENT (1)T extile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC); (2)CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 367 (SC); (3)CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 532 (Guj); (4)CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 253 (Guj); (5)Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669; (6)Bajaj T empo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income T ax [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC); (7)Broach District Cooperative Cotton Sales, Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income T ax [1989] 177 ITR 418 (SC). (8)Commissioner of Income T ax v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149 (SC) II. Contentions on behalf of the Revenue : Learned advocate Mr.K.M.Parikh appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee is not entitled to relief claimed under Section 80-I of the Act. He would submit that during the assessment proceedings the Chartered Accountant of the assessee Company conceded that the new project commissioned during the year would not be able to function on its own and it was merely an extension of the old unit by addition of 72 new cells, as a result of which, the production capacity of the company has increased substantially. Mr.Parikh would also submit that mere increase in production capacity or expansion of caustic soda expansion project-I cannot be said to be new industrial undertaking and, therefore, on this ground alone the assessee is not entitled to relief under Section 80-I of the Act. He would submit that substantial expansion claimed by the assessee cannot be equated with new industrial undertaking as contended by the assessee. He would submit that even if it is accepted that the expansion has been substantial, then also such expansion is not an ITR/141/1991 8/25 JUDGMENT independent unit capable of functioning on its own. He would submit that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income T ax (Appeals) and upheld by the Income T ax Appellate T ribunal, and in view of the concurrent findings, this Court may not interfere as there is no jurisdictional error committed by the authorities and the order of the T ribunal cannot be termed as perverse. Mr.Parikh, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions : (1)Commissioner of Income-tax v. Associated Cement Company [1979] 118 ITR 406]; (2)T extile Machinery Corporation Limited v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC). III. Object of Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act : The principal object of Section 80-I (Section 15C of 1922 Act) has been succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in the case of T extile Machinery Corporation (supra). The Supreme Court has explained as under :- “... The principal object of section 15C is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering tax incentives within a period of 13 years from April 1, 1948. Section 15C provides for a fractional exemption from tax of profits of a newly established undertaking for five assessment years as specified therein. This section was inserted in the Act in 1949 by section 13 of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949 (Act 67 of 1949), extending the benefit to the actual manufacture or production of articles commencing from a prior date, namely, April 1, 1948. After the country had gained independence in 1947 it was most essential to give fillip to trade and industry from all quarters. That seems to be the background for insertion of section 15C.” ITR/141/1991 9/25 JUDGMENT The Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj T empo Limited v. Commissioner of Income-T ax, reported in [1992] 196 ITR 188, has explained the object of Section 15C of the Act of 1922. The Supreme Court held as under :- “Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read as a whole, is a provision directed towards encouraging industrialisation by permitting an assessee setting up a new industrial undertaking to claim relief from tax to the extent of tax on six per cent of the capital employed every year. But the Legislature took care to restrict such benefit only to those undertakings which were new in form and substance, by providing that the undertaking should not be “formed” in any manner provided in clause (i) of section 15C(2). By that clause, the Legislature intended to control any attempt or effort to abuse the benefit intended for new undertakings by changing of label. The intention was not to deny the benefit to genuine new industrial undertakings but to control the mischief which might have otherwise taken place. Adopting a literal construction would result in defeating the very purpose of section 15C. Therefore, it becomes necessary to resort to a construction which is reasonable and purposive to make the provision meaningful. The initial exercise, therefore, should be to find out whether the undertaking was new. Once this test is satisfied, then clause (i) should be applied reasonably and liberally keeping in view the spirit of section 15C(1).” In the same judgment, the Supreme Court has also held that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. The Supreme Court has held as under :- “...A provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally : In Broach District Co-operative Cotton Sales, Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 418 (SC), the assessee, a co-operative society, claimed that the receipts from ginning and pressing activities were exempted under section 81 of the Income-tax Act. The question for interpretation was whether the co-operative society which carried on the business ITR/141/1991 10/25 JUDGMENT of ginning and pressing was a society engaged in “marketing” of the agricultural produce of its members. The court held that the object of section 81(1) was to encourage and promote the growth of co-operatrive societies and, consequently, a liberal construction must be given to the operation of that provision. And since ginning and pressing was incidental or ancillary to the activities mentioned in section 81(1), the assessee was entitled to exemption and the proviso did not stand in his way. In CIT v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 431 (SC), it was held that the law providing for concession for tax purposes to encourage industrial activity should be liberally construed. The question before the court was whether Strawboard could be said to fall within the expression “paper and pulp” mentioned in the Schedule relevant to the respective assessment years. The court held that since the words “paper and pulp” were mentioned in the Schedule, the intention was to refer to the paper and pulp industry and since the Strawboard industry could be described as forming part of the paper and pulp industry, it was entitled to the benefit. The section, read as a whole, was a provision directed towards encouraging industrialisation by permitting an assessee setting up a new undertaking to claim the benefit of not paying tax to the extent of six per cent in a year on the capital employed. But the Legislature took care to restrict such benefit only to those undertakings which were new in form and substance by providing that the undertaking should not be “formed” in any manner provided in clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 15C. Each of these requirements, namely, formation of the undertaking by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business or transfer to the undertaking of building, raw material or plant used in any previous business results in denial of the benefit contemplated under sub-section (1). Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it. But that turned out to be the unintended consequence of construing the clause literally, as was done by the High Court, for which it cannot be blamed, as the provision is susceptible of such construction if the purpose behind its enactment, the objective it sought to achieve and the mischief it intended to control are lost sight of.” IV . Analysis : Section 80-I, as is relevant for the present, reads as under: ITR/141/1991 11/25 JUDGMENT “80-I. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel, to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to twenty per cent thereof: Provided that in the case of an assessee, being a company, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words 'twenty per cent', the words 'twenty-five per cent' had been substituted. (2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfills all the following conditions, namely :- (i) it is not formed by the splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence; (ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose; (iii)it manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule, or operates one or more cold storage plant or plants, in any part of India, and begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or to operate such plant or plants, at any time within the period of four years next following the 31st day of March, 1981, or such further period as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify with reference to any particular industrial undertaking; (iv)in a case where the industrial undertaking manufactures or produces articles or things, undertaking employs ten or more worker in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power, or employs twenty or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on without the aid of power : .. Explanation 2. - Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant or any part thereof previously used for any purpose is transferred to a new business and the total value of the machinery or plant or part so transferred does not exceed twenty per cent of the value of the machinery or plant used in the business, then, for the purposes of clause (ii) of this sub-section, the condition specified therein shall be deemed to have been complied with.” ITR/141/1991 12/25 JUDGMENT On a plain reading, it transpires that under sub-section (1) of section 80-I of the Act, an assessee becomes entitled to a deduction equal to twenty per cent of the profits and gains where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking, to which, section 80-I applies. Under sub- section (2) of section 80-I of the Act, four different conditions are prescribed. Clause (I) of sub-section (2) stipulates that an industrial undertaking is not formed by the splitting up, or the reconstruction, of the business already in existence; clause (ii) stipulates that an industrial undertaking is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose; clause (iii) requires the industrial undertaking to manufacture or produce any article or thing, except an article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule, (rest of the part of the clause not being material for the present); and clause (iv) requires an industrial undertaking to employ ten or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power, or employ twenty or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on without the aid of power. It appears that the only ground which weighed with the Commissioner of Income T ax (Appeals) and the T ribunal is that the assessee has not been able to lead any evidence to show that the new unit is capable of independently producing the goods without the aid of the existing plant and machinery of the old unit. It also appears that the authorities relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cement Company (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has taken the view that the establishment of a new industrial unit as a part of an already existing industrial establishment may result in an expansion of the industry or the factory, but if the newly established unit is itself an integrated independent unit in which new plant and machinery is put up and is itself independently of the old unit capable of production of goods then only it could be classified as a newly established industrial ITR/141/1991 13/25 JUDGMENT undertaking. In the present case, it is undisputed that the company has a separate industrial licence for the industrial undertaking and spent over Rs.7.5 crore for putting up plant and machinery necessary for the purpose. It is also undisputed that the production capacity of the undertaking of caustic soda has increased from 37245 M.T onnes to 70425 M.T onnes. Thus, what has been ignored by the authorities is two things: (i) the capital employed; and (2) the substantial expansion of industrial undertaking, by which the production became almost double the original capacity. In so far as the conditions stipulated by clause nos.(iii) and (iv) to Section 80-I of the Act are concerned, it is not even the Revenue's case that there has been any violation of the said two conditions. In so far as the clause nos.(i) and (ii) are concerned, when one reads the assessment order, it becomes clear that though not stated clearly, it is a case of the Revenue that industrial undertaking is formed by reconstruction of a business already in existence, that is to say, by expansion of the already existing industrial undertaking. The Supreme Court in the case of T extile Machinery Corporation (supra) construed section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which provision is similar to section 80J of the Act of 1961. The Supreme Court, inter alia, held that “section 15C is an exemption section. The words “capital employed” in the principal clause of section 15C are significant, for fresh capital must be employed in the new undertaking claiming exemption. There must be a new undertaking where substantial investment of fresh capital must be made in order to enable earning of profits attributable to that new capital”. The court also observed that “the principal of object of section 15C is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by obtaining tax incentives...” “...Manufacture or production of articles yielding additional profit attributable to the new outlay of capital in a separate and distinct unit is the heart of the matter to earn exemption of tax liability under section 15C”. Regarding the ITR/141/1991 14/25 JUDGMENT effect of substantial expansion, the court observed, “the true test is not whether the new industrial undertaking connotes expansion of an existing business of the assessee, but whether it is all the same a new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from the existing business. No particular decision in one case can lay down an inexorable test to determine whether a given case comes under section 15C or not”. In the case of CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 367, the Supreme Court upheld the claim of the assessee for benefits under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, inter alia, in respect of expansion of its existing factories by setting up units side by side with the old units and adding to the respondent's total output. In the case of CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 110, the apex court upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court which had held that the assessee which had set up a plant for the manufacture of caustic soda housed in a separate building after obtaining a separate industrial licence was entitled to relief under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In the case of Municipal Commissioner, Chinchwad New T ownship Municipal Council v. Century Enka Ltd., reported in AIR 1996 SC 187, the court reiterated the law laid down in the cases of Orient Paper Mills (supra) and Indian Aluminium (supra). In CIT v. Premier Cotton Mills Limited [1999] 240 ITR (434), the Division Bench of Madras High Court was dealing with almost the same issue. It held as under :- “...The requirements of the section are met if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the assessee has established an industrial undertaking which manufactures or produces article with the aid of plant and machinery newly installed in that undertaking. The term industrial undertaking is not defined in ITR/141/1991 15/25 JUDGMENT section 80J of the Act. The word “undertaking” is not to be equated with the legal entity which may own undertaking. A single legal entity may own and operate more than one industrial undertaking and the fact of common ownership does not render undertakings which are otherwise capable of being separate into a common undertaking. What is of relevance is the existence of all the facilities including factory buildings, plant, machinery, godowns and things which are incidental to the carrying on of manufacture or production, all of which were taken together are capable of being regarded as an industrial undertaking. When an existing industrial undertaking is substantially expanded and the manner of such expansion is such that the newly installed plant, machinery and other facilities such as factory buildings, godowns, etc., when taken together are capable of being regarded as an industrial undertaking, the requirements of the section are met. The fact that the industrial undertaking so established by way of substantial expansion is at a location which is adjacent to the existing undertaking would not in any way render such an undertaking any the less a new undertaking for the purpose of determining its eligibility under section 80J of the Act. When substantial expansion of industrial undertaking is embarked upon such expansion cannot be expected to be completed overnight or within the same assessment year. The size of the expansion, the amount of investment required, the extent of the construction that may be involved, the lead time required for securing the new machinery, the source of the supply, the extent of finance available and the speed with which such finance can be obtained are all factors which along with other relevant factors cumulatively determine the extent of time within which the expansion can be completed. All these factors are no doubt relevant even when a new undertaking is established for the first time by the newly constituted legal entity or by an individual who proceeds to set up a new industrial undertaking. The fact that the expansion is completed in stages by adding spindles to existing spinning mills does not on that score alone render such addition incapable of being regarded as part of the establishment of an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80J of the Act. The addition though made in stages is part of a larger plan of substantial expansion which plan is implemented in stages over a period of time having regard to the various factors which affect the installation of new machinery and the addition of the facilities required such as factory buildings, godowns, etc. In this case, the industrial licence was obtained by the assessee for a substantial expansion on August 20, 1975. The licence enabled the assessee to increase the number of spindles which ITR/141/1991 16/25 JUDGMENT was apparently less than 20,000 as on the date of that licence, to 50,000. The assessee had added the additional spindlage after securing that licence and had completed the programme of expansion by July, 1981.” We are not able to understand the logic of the argument that the true test would be as to whether a new industrial undertaking can function independently of the existing industrial undertaking. If this argument of the Revenue is accepted, it will amount to adding a new clause in Section 80-I of the Act. Assuming for the moment that the new unit is not capable of independently producing the goods without taking the assistance of the existing plant and machinery of the old unit is no ground to reject the claim under Section 80-I of the Act. It all depends upon the mechanism and technology. As held by the Supreme Court in T extile Machinery Corporation (supra), such a new industrially recognizable unit of an assessee cannot be said to be reconstruction of his old business since there is no transfer of any assets of the old business to the new undertaking which takes place when there is reconstruction of the old business. For the purpose of Section 80-I of the Act, the industrial units setup must be new in the sense that new plant and machinery are erected for producing either the same commodities or some distinct commodities. In order to deny the benefit of Section 80-I, the new undertaking must be formed by reconstruction of the old business. In the present case, there is no formation of any industrial undertaking out of the existing business since that can take place only when the assets of the old business are transferred substantially to the new undertaking. Just because the new undertaking is dependent to a certain extent on the existing undertaking should not deprive the new undertaking of the status of integrated unit by itself wherein articles are produced and atleast a minimum of 10 person with the aid of the power and a minimum of 20 persons without the aid of the power have been employed. This aspect has been well-explained by the Supreme Court in T extile Machinery Corporation (supra), laying down the requisite tests for an undertaking to be entitled to the benefit under Section 15C of the Act ITR/141/1991 17/25 JUDGMENT of 1922 (now Section 80-I of 1961). The Supreme Court has held that in order to be entitled to the benefit under Section 15C, the following facts have to be established by the assessee, subject always to time- schedule in the section: (1)investment of substantial fresh capital in the industrial undertaking set up, (2)employment of requisite labour therein, (3)manufacture or production of articles in the said undertaking, (4)earning of profits clearly attributable to the said new undertaking, and (5)above all, a separate and distinct identity of the industrial unit set up. We are of the view that so far as the fifth test is concerned i.e. a separate and distinct identity, only because to a certain extent the new undertaking is dependent on the existing unit, will not deprive the new undertaking the status of a separate and distinct identity. It all depends on the nature of the technology and the mechanism of production. We cannot ignore the fact that new machinery and new plant have been installed at an investment of Rs.7 crore some time in the year 1982-83 i.e. almost three decades back and also the fact that the production has gone from 34000 M.T onnes to almost 75000 M.T onnes. As very strong reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court by Mr.Parikh appearing for the Revenue, we shall look into the judgment in detail so as to decide as to whether the so-called principle propounded in the said judgment would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not. In the case of Associated Cement Company (supra), the assessee, a cement company, claimed exemption of profits, under ITR/141/1991 18/25 JUDGMENT Section 15-C of the Act of 1922, amounting to Rs.8,74,036=00. This was in respect of 4 new kilns which were commissioned at the assessee's factories at Shahabad, Bhupendra, Kistna and Chaibasa. The ITO declined to give relief to the assessee on the ground that the starting of the new kilns did not amount to creation of a new industrial undertaking as contemplated by Section 15C of the Act of 1922, and took the view that these were improvements or extensions to the existing factories and since part of the old buildings, machinery and plant were utilised in the working of the new kilns, the assessee was not entitled to relief under Section 15C of the Act of 1922 in respect of the profits arising as a result of the introduction of these kilns. The assessee went in appeal against the order of ITO and the appeal came to be allowed by the AAC and the department then went in appeal against the order of the AAC to the T ribunal. The T ribunal while considering the provisions of Section 15C of the Act of 1922 took the view that the provisions of that section apply not only to new undertakings but also to new units of old undertakings and that it has to be considered whether a particular expansion or extension of an industrial undertaking is a new unit by itself or whether it is merely an improvement or renovation of the old one. The test which the T ribunal adopted was that if the new installation brought about a sizable increase in the production capacity of the undertaking, it must be called a new unit regardless of the fact that some old staff did the routine work for the new unit as for the old and that some godowns and office buildings of the old unit were available for use for the products of the new unit. The Commissioner of Income T ax, therefore, came up in appeal before the High Court. Thus, the question before the Bombay High Court was, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee Company was entitled to relief under Section 15C of the Act of 1922 for the Assessment Year 1959-60 in respect of the new kilns. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court took into consideration the following aspects while ITR/141/1991 19/25 JUDGMENT answering the question in favour of the assessee : (1)The new kiln at each factory worked independently of the old kilns and if on account of lack of demand, production would be curtailed, any of the kilns, whether old or newly erected, would be stopped; (2)Statement attached to the certificate also disclosed the additional capacity of the new kilns as compared with the existing works. In respect of the kilns at four centres referred to above, the capacity of the new kilns was shown to be 1,00,000 tons, 1,65,000 tons, 1,00,000 tons and 1,00,000 tons, respectively; (3)In respect of the new erected kiln at place Kistna, the capacity of the newly constructed kiln alone was much more than the capacity of the entire factory which was shown to be only 90,000 tons. Bench was made available a table which showed several amounts running into several lakhs spent in the construction of buildings, purchase of plant and machinery, construction of water works and railway siding and tram lines, purchase of rolling stock and expenses of electric installation necessitated by the construction of the new kilns at each of the four factories. T aking into consideration the above referred aspects, the Bench observed that there can be no doubt that the construction of each of the new kilns at each of the four factories resulted into an expansion of the factory itself. That by itself would, however, not disentitle the assessee to the relief under Section 15C of the Act of 1922. It is in this background of the entire case that ultimately the Bench ruled as under : ITR/141/1991 20/25 JUDGMENT “Establishment of a new industrial unit as a part of an already existing industrial establishment may not doubt result in an expansion of the industry or the factory, but if the newly established unit is itself an integrated independent unit in which new plant and machinery is put up and is itself, independently of the old unit, capable of production of goods, then, in our view, it could be classified as a newly established industrial undertaking. In Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195, the Supreme Court has pointed out that if a new undertaking is an integrated unit by itself, wherein articles are produced and at least a minimum of 10 persons with the aid of power and a minimum of 20 persons without the aid of power have been employed, such an integrated unit will qualify for the relief under s.15C of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The Supreme Court has pointed out in that case that such a new industrially recognisable unit of an assessee cannot be said to be reconstruction of his old business, since there is no transfer of any assets of the old business to the new undertaking which takes place when there is reconstruction of the old business. It was held in that case that for the purpose of s.15C, the industrial unit set up must be new in the sen se that new plants and machinery must be erected for producing either the same commodities or some distinct commodities. The facts which we have referred to earlier clearly establish that the new kilns are ca completely integrated unit which could be put into production independently of the other units or production therefrom can cease without affecting the production from the other kilns. There is also no doubt that all these four kilns at the four different factories have been established with the plant and machinery newly purchased and required exclusively for the purposes of these new kilns. Thus, even though the business or the industrial establishment as a whole has been expanded by the addition of a new kiln, each new kiln by itself would, in our view, clearly constitute a new industrial undertaking within the meaning of s.15C of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in taking the view that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of s.15C of the Indian I.T.Act, 1922.” Thus, if the judgment of the Bombay High Court is read as a whole, the judgment does not lay down an absolute principle of law that if the new unit is to a certain extent dependent on the existing unit, that by itself would be sufficient to deny the benefit of concession. Judgment has to be read as a whole and an observation during the course of reasoning in the judgment should not be divorced from the context in which it was used. ITR/141/1991 21/25 JUDGMENT We have noticed that this judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cement Company (supra) has been referred to in a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-T ax, West Bengal-IV v. Harinkhola Ice and Cold Storage Ltd., reported in 1982 (134) ITR 540. In the case before the Calcutta High Court, the assessee erected new unit of cold storage in new building with new plant and machinery. Some old machinery was used in the new unit. The ITO rejected the claim on the ground that the old plant and machinery were being used in the new industrial undertaking which disentitled the assessee for deduction under Section 80-J. This finding of the ITO was upheld by the AAC in appeal. On further appeal, the T ribunal found that the second unit was set up in a different building with entirely different plant and machinery and independent electrical system. The T ribunal also found from the documents placed that for erecting second unit of cold storage plant, the assessee invested a sum of Rs.5,39,672=00 for factory building, plant and machinery, racks and electrical installation, out of which Rs.31,603=00 represented the written down value of the old machines and electric motor which were used for the new plant as also the old plant. In the facts of the case, after examining the provision of Section 80-J, the T ribunal took the view that in view of the Explanation to sub- section (4) of Section 80J of the Act, the total value of the old assets, if used for the second unit of the cold storage, did not exceed the statutory limit of 20% of the total value of the building, machinery or plant used therefor, the assessee was entitled to the deduction. In appeal by the Revenue before the High Court, the Bench of the High Court, bearing in mind the purpose or the scope of Section 80-J which was to encourage new industrial undertaking in respect of separate and distinct undertaking, confirmed the findings recorded by ITR/141/1991 22/25 JUDGMENT the T ribunal and granted the benefit in favour of the assessee. We have also noticed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cement Company (supra) has been referred to in a subsequent judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-T ax v. Chanda Diesels, reported in [1995] 216 ITR 639. In this case, the benefit was extended in favour of the assessee. In Chanda Diesels (supra), the assessee, a partnership firm, was carrying on the business of selling diesel engines at Chanda in the trade name of “Chanda Diesels”. The business assets of Chanda Diesels were valued at Rs.35,066=00. The assessee firm was formed by a deed. It took over the said business and assets and carried on the business of selling diesel engines. It subsequently purchased machinery worth Rs.79,726=00 for manufacturing fuel injection pipes for diesel engines by making nipples and giving shapes at both the ends of the tubes which were used as raw-material in the process. While denying the benefit under Section 80HH, the Revenue took the stand that there existed no industrial undertaking and it was formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence and/or by the transfer to a new business of machinery previously used. In the said case, as the facts would reveal, the Chanda Diesels, when taken over by the assessee, had neither any machinery nor was it making any fuel injection pipes. It was carrying on only the business of selling of diesel engines. Its business assets were only worth Rs.35,066=00. The assessee made investment to the tune of Rs.79,726=00 in purchasing new machinery for the purposes of making fuel injection pipes for diesel engines by making nipples and giving shape at both the ends of the tubes. The Bench held that the Income T ax Act does not define the term “industrial undertaking”. Section 80HH being intended to encourage setting up new industrial enterprises and hence, should be construed liberally in a broad ITR/141/1991 23/25 JUDGMENT commercial sense, keeping its object in view. In this background, the Division Bench, relying on the earlier judgment in the case of Associated Cement Company (supra), held as under : “In this context, the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 406, wherein it is held that if a new industrial unit is established as a part of an already existing industrial establishment and if the newly established unit is itself an integrated independent unit in which new plant and machinery is put up and that by itself is capable of production of goods independently of the old unit, even the said unit could be classified as a newly established industrial undertaking, and will qualify for the relief. Thus, looked at from any point of view, the conclusion is inevitable that the assessee was entitled to deduction also under section 80HH. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.” What is discernible from the above referred authoritative pronouncements is that in all cases, ultimately, the benefit was extended in favour of the assessee. In these set of facts and circumstances, it is difficult for us to straightway apply the principle of law as propounded by Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cement Company (supra), where the view taken is that if the newly established unit is itself an integrated independent unit in which new plant and machinery is put up and is itself independently of the old unit capable of producing goods, then it could be classified as newly established industrial undertaking. Perhaps, what Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court wants to convey is that the new unit should be completely independent so far as production of goods is concerned and it should not be dependent on the existing unit. ITR/141/1991 24/25 JUDGMENT In the present case also, it is not the case of the Revenue that the new unit by itself is not capable of production of goods but the case of the Revenue is that it takes help of the old existing unit. We are of the view that, that itself should not be the reason to reject the claim under Section 80-I of the Act. Thus, whether an undertaking is a “new industrial undertaking” entitled to the exemption under Section 80-I of the Act depends on the facts of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Use by the assessee of the old undertaking for the purpose of production in its new undertaking is not a decisive test in construing Section 80-I of the Act. The new undertaking must not be substantially the same old business. Substantial investment of new capital is imperative and in the present case, there has been a huge substantial investment of around Rs.7 crore almost three decades ago. The words “the capital employed” in the principal clause of Section 80-I of the Act are significant, for fresh capital must be employed in the new undertaking claiming exemption. Manufacture or production of articles yielding additional profit attributable to the new outlay of capital in a separate and distinct unit is essential to earn the benefit of Section 80-I. The fact that an assessee by establishment of a new industrial undertaking expands his existing business which he certainly does, would not on that score deprive him of the benefit under Section 80-I. Every new creation in business is some kind of expansion and advancement. The true test is not whether the new industrial undertaking connotes expansion of the existing business of the assessee but whether it is a new identifiable endevour where substantial investment of fresh capital is made to enable earning of profit attributable to that new capital. In the circumstances, the question referred for the opinion of this Court is answered in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ITR/141/1991 25/25 JUDGMENT (Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Acting C.J.) (J.B.Pardiwala, J.) /moin "