Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The learned Counsel had also made a request to the Bench for a visit to his unit where the assessee processed/manufactured ornamental fishes with the help of various processes and this Bench accepted the request of learned Counsel and visited the unit of the assessee along with the learned Departmental Representative.

6. The learned Counsel for the assessee has thereafter pointed out that the ratio of two decisions relied by the learned AO while disallowing the claim of the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case as in the case of India Poultry v. CIT (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 503 : (2001) 250 ITR 664 (SC), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the business of rearing chicks into broilers would entitle the assessee the benefit of exemption as an industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80HH and Section 80-I or not. It was contended before the Hon'ble apex Court that the assessee not only reared the chicken but also dressed them for sale in the market and therefore process of manufacture was carried out. Learned Counsel has pointed out that in this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no material in this behalf and therefore the claim was disallowed. Whereas in the case of CIT v. Relish Food (1999) 152 CTR (SC) 500 : (1999) 237 ITR 59 (SC) again the issue was whether the process of cutting of heads and tails, peeling and cleaning and freezing amounted to manufacture or not and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was no detailed description of what the assessee did to shrimps and therefore the bald statement that he peals and freezes them was not acceptable as manufacturing activity to the Court.

(i) CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 243 : (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC);

(ii) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 116 : (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC);

(iii) Bhargavy P. Sumathykutty v. Janaki Sathyabhama and Ors. (1996) 131 CTR (Ker) 316 : (1996) 217 ITR 129 (Ker).

15. In his rival submission, the learned Departmental Representative relied fully on the order of tax authorities. Rebutting the contention of the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee, it has been pleaded by learned Departmental Representative that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the order of the Supreme Court in cases of Venkateshwar Hatcheries (supra), Indian Poultry (supra) and Relish Food (supra) which had been relied by the AO also wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the assessee company was not entitled for benefit under Sections 80HH and 80-I as the activities of processing to convert chicks into broiler cannot tantamount to manufacturing or processing activity. It has been submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the facts in the present case are identical as in the present case also as the assessee is applying simple method in changing raw juvenile fishes into ornamental fishes and therefore the fact of the case is almost identical to the facts of the case involved in the above three cases relied by the AO while denying benefit of deduction under Section 10B to the assessee and therefore such action of the AO and CIT(A) should be upheld.

16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the orders of the tax authorities. We have also considered the paper book filed and the case laws relied upon. We also have taken into consideration the processing activities as seen by us while visiting the premises of the assessee along with the learned Departmental Representative while deciding the issues.

17. In this case the Revenue has considered the processing of juvenile fishes into ornamental fishes not eligible for deduction under Section 10B as such conversion of juvenile fishes into ornamental fishes could not be considered as manufacturing activity within the meaning of Section 10B of the Act, by relying on the order of Supreme Court in the case of Venkateshwara Hatcheries and Ors. (supra). The assessee on the other hand has contended that the conversion activity of juvenile fishes into ornamental fishes certainly tantamounts to the manufacturing activity as the assessee by such conversion is bringing altogether a new article or item which is distinct and separate from the original entity. The assessee has further contended that such conversion activity of juvenile fishes into ornamental fishes could not be considered at par with the activity of rearing of chicks into broilers and therefore the decisions of Hon'ble apex Court, relied by the Revenue are not applicable to the facts of the case.

33. In our considered opinion, rearing of chicks into broilers does not take the character of manufacturing as such rearing of chicks into broilers is well possible even without manufacturing activity; the same is also true in the case of cutting of heads and tails of shrimps whereas in the present case, the assessee is converting juvenile fishes into ornamental fishes not only in its ordinary form but also by reversing the sex of fishes which is not possible without undertaking number of processes and such ornamental fishes are quite distinct and separate from the ordinary juvenile fishes. The assessee has also submitted a detailed description of various processes (which were also produced before the authority below) adopted for the production of ornamental fishes which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity: