1987 JTR(SC) 701
1987 3 JT 578 ; 1988 Supp SCC 487
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., M. H. KANIA, J.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY
Versus
M/s TIECICON PVT. LTD.
Civil Appeals Nos. 658-60 of 1975, decided on September 3, 1987
Act
Referred
:FINANCE ACT : S.2(6)(c), S.2(6)(d)
INCOME TAX ACT : S.256, S.257
Finance Act, 1968 – Section 2 – Finance Acts, 1969 – Section 2 – Income Tax Appellant Tribunal held in appeals filed by respondent - Assessment for assessment - Assessee relating to assessment for assessment inasmuch as respondent supplied cool, filtered and chilled air through air-conditioning apparatus to lessees in building under consideration was an industrial company" within as it could be said to have engaged in manufacture or processing of goods and rate of tax applicable to respondent per cent – Held, Question whether respondent was an "industrial company" in terms of definitions referred to earlier was rejected by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on ground that question was one of fact and not of law reference application made by Commissioner of Income Tax to High Court was rejected on the same ground appeals against the order of High Court declining to call for a statement of case and rejecting reference application we have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are satisfied that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Court are right in holding that question is one of fact – Appeal dismissed.
Finance Act, 1968 – Section 2 – Finance Acts, 1969 – Section 2 – Income Tax Appellant Tribunal held in appeals filed by respondent - Assessment for assessment - Assessee relating to assessment for assessment inasmuch as respondent supplied cool, filtered and chilled air through air-conditioning apparatus to lessees in building under consideration was an industrial company" within as it could be said to have engaged in manufacture or processing of goods and rate of tax applicable to respondent per cent – Held, Question whether respondent was an "industrial company" in terms of definitions referred to earlier was rejected by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on ground that question was one of fact and not of law reference application made by Commissioner of Income Tax to High Court was rejected on the same ground appeals against the order of High Court declining to call for a statement of case and rejecting reference application we have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are satisfied that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Court are right in holding that question is one of fact – Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
The Income Tax Appellant Tribunal held in appeals filed by the respondent-assessee relating to the assessment for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 that inasmuch as the respondent supplied cool, filtered and chilled air through air-conditioning apparatus to the lessees in the building under consideration, it was an "industrial company" within the meaning of Section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968 and Section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Acts, 1969 and 1970, as it could be said to have engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods and therefore, the rate of tax applicable to the respondent was 55 per cent and not the rate of 65 per cent. The application made by the Commissioner of Tax for reference of the question whether the respondent was an "industrial company" in terms of the definitions referred to earlier was rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the question was one of fact and not of law. A reference application made by the Commissioner of Income Tax to the High Court was rejected on the same ground. In these appeals against the order of the High Court declining to call for a statement of the case and rejecting the reference application, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are satisfied that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court are right in holding that the question is one of fact. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals but without any order as to costs.
For Citation : 1988 Supp SCC 487