Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Ektara Exports Pvt Limited on 10 September, 2008
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
ITA No. 657 of 2008
G.A.No.2734 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ/Civil Appellate/Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
M/S. EKTARA EXPORTS PVT LIMITED Defendant/Respondent
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANKAR PRASAD MITRA Date : 10th September, 2008.
The Court :- We are satisfied with the grounds made in the petition for condonation of delay. Hence delay is condoned. Accordingly, the application being G.A.No. 2734 of 2008 is allowed.
The only question arose in this matter is whether the assessee can get benefit of Section 10A. The department has specifically stated that the fixation of level, button, ironing, packing garments did not amount to manufacturing and that is the reason the assessee cannot get any exemption under section 10A.
We only put a question to Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the department that whether a shirt can be treated as shirt without stitching it and whether a shirt can be stitched without having a button hole. Cloth cannot be treated as garment until and unless it becomes finished goods. To treat 1 finished goods, it presupposes without manufacturing that cannot be reached to such position or can be treated as finished goods.
In view of that, in our considered opinion, it is correctly held by the learned Tribunal as nothing but tantamount to manufacturing thereby the assessee is bound to get the benefit under section 10A of the said Act.
Therefore, we do not find that there is any reason to differ with the opinion so passed by the learned Tribunal and furthermore for better appreciation of facts and law as the Tribunal has relied upon may be quoted hereinunder:
"We, therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case find that the observation of the A.O that the assessee company was not involved in manufacturing process to enable it to claim deduction under section 10A was not correct as the above Circular of the Board, Ministry of Finance, decision of Metro Ready Wear (Supra) and the licence granted by the Development Commissioner clearly indicate that the above stitching of buttons, ironing, labeling, etc, done by the assessee on the garments received by it from M/s. Arihant Garments was to be reckoned as manufacturing process against which the claim under section 10A was justifiable and hence the ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the A.O to all the claim of the assessee under section 10A. We therefore, taking the totality of the present case before us and in the light of above discussion, are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) while 2 adjudicating the appeal before him has passed a well reasoned and discussed order which does not call for any; interference from our side and accordingly, uphold the same and reject the ground raised by the Revenue."
We are absolutely agreeing with such opinion as expressed by the learned Tribunal and we do not find that there is any substantial question of law is involved in this matter to admit this appeal. Hence the appeal being ITA No. 657 of 2008 is dismissed.
All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) (SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J.) dg/ 3