COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS VENKATESWARA HATCHERIES (P.) LTD.
2001 P T D 2401
[247 I T R 273]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha, S. S.M. Quadri and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Versus
VENKATESWARA HATCHERIES (P.) LTD.
C.A. No.468 of 1997, decided on 02/08/2000.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 27, 1995, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.C. No.39 of 1995).
(a) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Investment allowance‑‑‑Addition to hatchery building‑‑ Whether entitled to investment allowance as "plant" ‑‑Question of law‑‑ Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32A & 256.
(b) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Special deduction ‑‑‑Assessee engaged in hatchery business‑‑ Whether entitled to special deduction under S. 80JJ ‑‑‑Question of law‑‑ Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 80JJ & 256.
Held, (i) that the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the additions to hatchery building treating it as "plant" was question of law.
(ii) that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80JJ was a question of law.
CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC) ref.
S. Rajappa, Rajiv Nanda and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant.
P.J Paradiwalla and R.B. Hathikhanawala, Advocates for Respondent.
ORDER
The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following question:
(1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is. justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for the investment allowance under section 32A in respect of the additions to hatchery building treating it as 'plant'?
(2)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80JJ of the Income Tax Act, 1961?".
It did so because, according to it, no question of law arose, the same being covered by its judgments.
Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that both questions must now be answered in favour of the Revenue by reason of the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 Learned counsel for the assessee does not accept this position. It is, therefore, necessary that these two questions, which undoubtedly raise questions of law, must be decided by the High Court.
The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal shall now refer the two questions to the High Court for decision, having drawn up the statement of case.
No order as to costs.
M.B.A./986/FCAppeal allowed.