9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had not employed ten or more workers. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held to the contrary. 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the respondent- assessee had employed 10 or more workers in the industrial undertaking at Jammu is factually incorrect and perverse. He relies upon the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3.6 and 3.7 of the assessment order. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the aforesaid findings is reproduced below : 3.6 From the plain reading of the above section, it is clear that in a case where the industrial undertaking manufacturing or produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Income-tax Act, however, by taking the ordinary dictionary meaning it includes a casual, permanent or temporary worker. As is evidence that the assessee in its salary register has written 'c/labour' against the name of all workers meaning 'casual labour' for which the salary register has prepared and filed, therefore, the person other than the person appearing in the salary register cannot be taken into account for the purpose of counting the number of workers engaged in the manufacturing process. (emphasis supplied) 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the other hand has recorded that the respondent-assessee had employed 10 or more workers. He has referred to the details of workers submitted by the respondent- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny other kind or work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process. Therefore, in the absence of the expression 'worker' defined under the Act, it would be reasonable to hold that the expression 'worker' in section 80-IB(2)(iv) of the Act is referable to the persons employed by the assessee directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) in the manufacturing activity carried on by the assessee. In the present case, though the workers employed by the assessee directly were less than ten, it is not in dispute that the total number of workers employed by the assessee directly or hired through a contractor for carrying on the manufacturing activity exceeded ten and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
