TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt. We find that this case has now been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 485 : (2001) 247 ITR 301 (SC). It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment allowance was allowance on machinery employed in the process of extraction of granite from quarry, cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them was a question of law and the decision of the Karnataka High Court was reversed. Therefore, this objection of the learned authorised representative fails." The learned authorised representative submitted that the observation of the Bench that "we find that this case has now been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in (2000) 162 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been recorded at page No. 4, para v, of the order, that the only reason given in the order under s. 263 by the CIT directing to withdraw the investment allowance, was that because of the granting of SLP by the Supreme Court against the case reported in (1994) 205 ITR 461 (Kar), the appellant unit was not entitled for investment allowance as was claimed by it. The said para No. (v) of para 4 is reproduced hereunder: "Since the learned CIT in his order under s. 263 only took the basis of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court reported in CIT vs. Mysore Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 461 (Kar) against which SLP was granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court and no further basis having been made by him or if would have been available to the learned CIT while ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MMC). The assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 4,88,238 @ 20 per cent of the cost of plant and machinery purchased/acquired during the year under consideration. The AO did not examine the allowability of the claim in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and his order is silent on this aspect which implied that the claim of investment allowance had been allowed. Since the enquiry which ought to have been conducted, had not been done, the order was considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Further, being a job work, it was not the assessee s business to manufacture or produce any article or thing nor it is so in the case of open cast mining activity and under these circumstances the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for investment allowance as there was no manufacture or production of any article or thing. 6. The learned authorised representative submitted that the decision reported in (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 485 : (2001) 247 ITR 301 (SC) appears relating to some different year as is patent and obvious from the bare reading of the said judgment. 7. The mistake pointed out by the learned authorised representative with regard to citation of SLP is correct. The facts of both the cases are similar and the case seems to be pertaining to the same assessee, though may be of different year. Even in the judgment reported in (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 485 : (2001) 247 ITR 301 (SC), the Hon ble Supreme Court has also referred to the judgment in CIT vs. Mysore Ltd. (1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
