AARTECH SOLONICS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal was admitted on 1.12.2010 on the following substantial question of law:-

(2.) Facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical goods. It is having its one unit at Mandideep, District Raisen and another at Parwanoo, District Sonal (H.P.). The appellant's unit at Mandideep is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in the distribution/transmission of power, while its Parwanoo unit is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in generation of the power. The dispute is in respect of nature of product of Parwanoo unit of the appellant which is manufacturing Advanced Microprocessor based Fast Bus Transfer Scheme for power generation segment. The contention of the appellant is that it is a manufacturing process while the Tribunal has found that it was an assembling process, while the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had found that it was a product manufactured by the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that none of the authorities had examined the matter in proper perspective. Looking to the complex of the product, the authorities ought to have obtained an expert's opinion in this regard or the matter ought to have been referred to a panel of the experts to examine the nature of the product manufactured by the appellant at Parwanoo unit. Reliance is placed by the appellant to three judgments of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oracle Software India Ltd., 2010 320 ITR 546, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emptee Poly-Yarn P.Ltd, 2010 320 ITR 665and recently in Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh, 2012 210 Taxman 237and submitted that this matter may be remitted back to the assessing officer for a fresh decision after obtaining an opinion of the expert in respect of the nature of the product or to refer the matter to a panel of experts of department who would examine the nature of product.

(3.) Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel appearing for the department has opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, there is no need to remand the matter and this appeal may be dismissed. He has placed reliance to the order passed by the Tribunal in this regard.