Brooke Bond India Ltd., , Kolkata V. DCIT, Special Range - 2, Kolkata

ITA 2189/KOL/1991

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8168 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 27 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-1991
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN CHOUDHURY CITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMAK BASU
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2189/KOL/1991 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1983-84 BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD., 9, SHAKESPARE SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO. ] / V/S . DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-2, KOKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SOMAK BASU, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI ROBIN CHOUDHURY, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 19-12-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28-12-2018 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 08.02.1991 PASSED IN CASE NO.397CITA-VI30-91/DC.S INVOLVING PR OCEEDINGS 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE(S) PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES AT THE OUTSET THAT INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN LISTED IN FURTHERANCE TO HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN ITR NO. 8 OF 2000 DECIDED ON 18.06.2018. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD DECIDED THE INS TANT APPEAL ON 20.10.1997 ITA NO.2189/KOL/1991 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. VS DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE -2 KOL. PAGE 2 AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE ASSESSEE THEN FILED ITS REFERENCE APPLICATION RA NO.659/KOL/1997 U/S 256(1) OF THE ACT. LEARNED CO-O RDINATE BENCHS ORDER DATED 07.01.2000 REFERRED THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED QU ESTIONS FOR HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS ADJUDICATION ' I) WHETHER, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD TREATED TH E ASSESSEE AS BEING ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND/OR PRODUCTION OF PAC KET TEA, COFFEE AND INSTANT COFFEE, ETC., AND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT CHALL ENGED THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ANY APPEAL FILED BY IT, THE TR IBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THE SAID ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE BLENDING OF TEA CO FFEE AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE AND/OR PRODUCTION AND DECIDING THE QUESTIONS AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. II) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT BLENDING OF TEA AND/OR COFFEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING AN D IN THAT VIEW IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOT GRANTING INV ESTMENT ALLOWANCE ON WEIGHING MACHINES, COMPUTERS AND ELECTRICAL APPLIAN CES, ETC.? III) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES IN NOT GRANTING INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE ON WEIGHING MACHINES, COMPUTERS AND ELECT RICAL APPLIANCES, ETC. ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ITEMS OF PLANTS AND M ACHINERIES WERE NOT DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING?' 3. WE FIND IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THAT HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2018 HAS FIRST OF ALL HELD THA T THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT BLENDING OF TEA AND C OFFEE IN QUESTION AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION IN ASSESSEES CASE AS SET TLED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1981-82 AND 1982-83. THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE ACCEPTED THE FORMER TWO REFERENCE QUESTIONS IN TAXPAYERS FAVOUR IN THIS MANNER. 4. COMING TO THE THIRD QUESTION IN TRIBUNALS REFER ENCE RAISING INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE ISSUE ON WEIGHING MACHINES, COMPUTERS AND ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ITEMS OF PLANT AND MACHINERIE S ARE NOT DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR A THING, WE FIND THAT T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THE SAME TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SEC. 32(A)(2)(III) INVESTME NT ALLOWANCE DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED ON BOTH ISSUES IN HON'BLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ITA NO.2189/KOL/1991 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. VS DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE -2 KOL. PAGE 3 THEREFORE. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO DELETE THE TWO CORRESPONDING DISALLOWANCE(S) / ADDITION(S) FORMING SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOV E TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/12/2018 SD/- SD/- ( &) (( &) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS ) - 28/12/2018 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD., 9, SHAKESPEARE S ARANI, KOLKATA-71 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-2, KOLKATA 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . ((, , , /DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / ,,