COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GEETA DEVI PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :

(2.) THE assessee derives income from running a hotel. She claimed investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act on the furniture and electrical goods. THE relevant assessment year is 1983-84. THE Income-tax Officer has referred to the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the case of this very assessee, in the order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1981-82 and rejected the claim of the assessee. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has followed the order of the Tribunal in the case of Orient Express Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. IAC [1985] 14 ITD 506 (Delhi) and allowed the claim of the assessee. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Buhari Sons P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 12 and CIT v. Casino (Pvt.) Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 289 (Ker), wherein the Madras High Court has taken the view that hotel is a service industry and not an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of articles and things. Even then following the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Orient Express Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. IAC [1985] 14 ITD 506 (Delhi), the claim of the assessee was allowed.

(3.) AT the most assessee can claim that the assessee prepares eatables for customers. Preparation of eatables cannot tantamount to manufacturing of articles or things.