COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GEORGE MAIJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, for our consideration is :

(2.) THE assessee is engaged in processing and export of prawn and allied products. For the asst. yr. 1983-84, the assessee had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 2,12,852. That claim was rejected by the AO on the ground that the machinery was not used for manufacture or production of any articles or things. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) held that the process of preparing prawns for export involved production or manufacture and therefore the assessee was entitled to investment allowance. However, the AO, while giving effect to that order of the CIT(A) allowed investment allowance only in respect of the plant and machinery and rejected the claim in respect of the buildings. On further appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) held that the building which is used by the assessee as cold storage is specifically constructed to suit the requirements of the business of the assessee and, therefore, is eligible for investment allowance. Hence the present reference at the instance of the Revenue.

(3.) THAT decision squarely applies to this assessment year as well. The question is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.