Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income Tax, Jaipur
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2454 of 1997
Petitioner: Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent: Commr. of Income Tax, Jaipur
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2454 of 1997
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, U.C. BANERJEE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 08, 2000
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax Act, 1961
80 HH – Relief under – Business of mining limestone and marble blocks, then cutting and sizing before sale in market – If an activity of manufacture. Held, that it cannot be considered as manufacturing. Appeal dismissed.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The Tribunal, in the instant case, placed reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of M/s Best Chemical and Lime Stone Industries Pvt. Ltd. and concluded that the facts and circumstances in the present case were similar. It, therefore, followed its earlier judgment. The following question was referred to the High Court for consideration, arising out of the judgment of the Tribunal.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that business activity of the assessee is clearly in the nature of manufacturing or production and, therefore, it is entitled for relief under Section 80HH of the I.T. Act, 1961.”
2. The High Court answered the question against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal.
3. The High Court noted that the facts found by the Tribunal in the instant case were, “The assessee had business of mining of limestones and marble blocks and thereafter, cutting and sizing the same before being sold in the market.” The High Court distinguished its earlier judgment in the case of M/s Best Chemical & Lime Stone Industries Pvt. Ltd. because there the assessee was engaged in the business of extracting limestone and its sale either as such or after converting it into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers. Such, the High Court found, were not the facts in the case before it.
4. We have been shown the statements of case in the present matter as also in the matter of M/s Best Chemical (supra) and are satisfied that the Tribunal has found as aforestated. There was, therefore, clearly, a distinction on facts. The conversion into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers could legitimately be considered to be a manufacturing process while the mere mining of lime stone and marble and cutting the same before it was sold in the market could not be so considered.
5. The entire argument before us is based upon the High Court’s judgment in the case of M/s Best Chemicals (supra) and the fact that this Court declined to grant leave to appeal therefrom. However, the facts being different, that judgment cannot be followed here. No other argument is advanced.
6. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
1. The Tribunal, in the instant case, placed reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of M/s Best Chemical and Lime Stone Industries Pvt. Ltd. and concluded that the facts and circumstances in the present case were similar. It, therefore, followed its earlier judgment. The following question was referred to the High Court for consideration, arising out of the judgment of the Tribunal.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that business activity of the assessee is clearly in the nature of manufacturing or production and, therefore, it is entitled for relief under Section 80HH of the I.T. Act, 1961.”
2. The High Court answered the question against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal.
3. The High Court noted that the facts found by the Tribunal in the instant case were, “The assessee had business of mining of limestones and marble blocks and thereafter, cutting and sizing the same before being sold in the market.” The High Court distinguished its earlier judgment in the case of M/s Best Chemical & Lime Stone Industries Pvt. Ltd. because there the assessee was engaged in the business of extracting limestone and its sale either as such or after converting it into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers. Such, the High Court found, were not the facts in the case before it.
4. We have been shown the statements of case in the present matter as also in the matter of M/s Best Chemical (supra) and are satisfied that the Tribunal has found as aforestated. There was, therefore, clearly, a distinction on facts. The conversion into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers could legitimately be considered to be a manufacturing process while the mere mining of lime stone and marble and cutting the same before it was sold in the market could not be so considered.
5. The entire argument before us is based upon the High Court’s judgment in the case of M/s Best Chemicals (supra) and the fact that this Court declined to grant leave to appeal therefrom. However, the facts being different, that judgment cannot be followed here. No other argument is advanced.
6. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
