TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Similarly, in item no.4 also, the word "or" has been used between the activities, while in item no.12, the word "and" has been used between activities. It clearly denotes that both the conditions, i.e., processing and raising of plantation crops must be specified by an undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80IC(2)(b). This is the settled law that a fiscal statute shall have to be interpreted on the basis of the language used therein and not de hors the same. No words ought to be added and only the language to be used or considered so as to ascertain the proper meaning and intent of the legislation. The Court is to ascribe the natural and ordinary meaning to the words used by the legislature and the Court ought not, under any circumstances, statute to its own impression and ideas in place of the legislative intent as is available from a plain reading of the statutory provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corpn v. CIT [1999 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] has clearly held that an exemption is an exception to the general rule and since the same is opposed to the natural tenure of the statute, the entitlement for exemption, ought not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO was of the view that since the assessee was not engaged in the plantation of the tea and was only engaged in the processing of the tea, therefore, he disallowed the deduction. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) took the view that the deduction under section 80IC will be available to both the industries which are engaged in processing of tea, coffee, etc. or engaged in raising of the plantation of tea, coffee, etc by holding as under: "5.2 The way A.O. has interpreted the meaning of the processing and raising that assessee company being only producer of black tea from purchased green leaf is not engaged in processing and raising of plantation crop (in this case tea) and is not entitled to deduction u/s 80IC. Such a narrow interpretation is unwarranted to the fact of the present case. The Part-A of Schedule 14 does not say so. The same has to be interpreted in such a manner as not to make otiose and deterrent [Bama Metal Industries vs. CCE-1996 (82) ELT 81 (Tri)]. It clearly provides the benefit to industries which manufactures or produces 'processing and raising' of plantation crop-tea rubber, coffee, coconut, etc. It means 'processing' as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erves a liberal construction. In the manner the meaning of the term 'processing and raising' has been explained in the impugned order by the A.O., it would make it unworkable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Customs vs. United Electrical Industries Ltd. [1999 (108) ELT 609) has rightly held that the notification has to be interpreted to give true import and meaning, not to make it purposeless and nugatory. It is thus submitted that the ground on which the order-in-original has been passed denying the benefit of deduction is not a tenable ground in view of the wordings of impugned notification/schedule. 5.6 As per Rule of beneficial interpretation, if there exists more than one interpretation, the interpretation, which is most favourable to the assessee, shall prevail. Thus, if any sort of confusion prevails on interpretation in the case, the same is mitigated by the Rule of beneficial interpretation. It is recognized principle of interpretation that the administrative authority or the court should not whittle down the plentitude of the exemption or relief granted by the legislation by laying stress on any ambiguity here or there [CIT v Laxmi Metal Industries- (1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t allowed under section 80IC, it should be allowed under section 80IB. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record along with the orders of the taxing authorities. It is not denied by the ld. DR that the assessee was entitled for the deduction in the earlier years under section 80IB and deduction under section 80IC claimed by the assessee for the first time in assessment year 2005-06. We also noted that in view of the proviso (3) inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2004 under section 80IB(4), an assessee is not entitled for the deduction under section 80IB(4) in case, the assessee is fallen within the provisions of section 80IC(2). The main issue involved in both these appeals relates to the interpretation of the word "and" in item no.12 given in Schedule 14. Section 80IC(2), sub-section (b) allows the deduction to an assessee along with other conditions. If the assessee produces an article or things, prescribed in the Schedule 14, the assessee's claim is that his case falls in item 12 of Schedule 14, as the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of black tea. Item 12 of Sched ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n with a wider connotation to restrict its application to the specific language used depicting the intent of the Legislature. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on us. This decision is delivered subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra) on which the ld. A.R. has vehemently relied on. This is the settled law in view of the decision of Govinda Niak v. West Patent Press AIR 1980 kar. 92 (FB) and Bhika Ram v. Union of India [1999] 238 ITR 113 (Delhi) that even there is a conflict between the two decisions of the Supreme Court, the one decided by a Larger Bench is binding. If both decisions are rendered by the Bench consisting of equal number of Judges, the latter decision is binding. 5.1 We have also gone through the decision of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT 196 ITR page 188 (SC) (supra). The issue involved in this case was entirely different. In this case, the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 15C(1) and the AO did not dispute that the assessee has complied with all the conditions stipulated therein but in view of section 15C(2), the AO was of the view that the assessee was formed by splitting by transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR 26 has categorically held that principles of beneficial interpretation would apply only in a case where the Court is in doubt about the true scope and ambit of the provisions or finds two equally reasonable interpretations where the words of the statute are plain, precise and unambiguous. In view of our aforesaid discussions, we are of the firm view that until and unless complied with the conditions of engaging in processing and raising of the plantation of tea, the assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80IC(2)(b). 5.2 Now coming to the alternate submission of the ld. A.R. that the assessee is entitled for the deduction under section 80IB, which was allowed to the assessee in the earlier years also, since this issue has come up before us for the first time and the ld. D.R. also did not deny that the assessee was allowed deduction earlier under section 80IB, we, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the AO with the direction that the AO shall examine the plea of the assessee whether the claim of the assessee falls under section 80IB. In case, the AO finds that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
