In the years prior to the assessment year 1960 61 in question the respondent had four manufacturing centers at Belur, Kalwa, Alupuram and Hirakud.
It further held that these units have been set up side by side with the old ones and had added to the respondents total output of aluminium ingots.
On appeal to the Appellate Tribunal it held that during the previous year, the production of aluminium ingots went up by double, that the additional units set up by the respondent companyt over Rs.
The High Court distinguished the decision of the same companyrt in the Commissioner of Income tax West Bengal I v. Textile Machinery Corporation 80 ITR 488 briefly the Textile Machinery case and answered the question in favour of the assessee respondent herein .
Hence this appeal by certificate.
The Income tax Officer refused to allow the relief and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the respondents appeal.
at Balur and Alupuram.
This appeal as well as the two appeals Civil Appeal Nos.
50 lakhs at Belur and about the same figures or a little more at Alupuram, that in view of the nature of the substantial investments, it companyld number be said that the units were number new industrial units by themselves.
772 773 of 1972 by the assessee against the decision in the Textile Machinery case were argued together before us.
The facts appearing from the judgment are as follows The Indian Aluminium Company Limited hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent was a manufacturer of aluminium ingots from ore.
K. Goswami, J. This appeal by the Commissioner, of Income tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, on certificate is from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, since reported in Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal I v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. 88 ITR 257.
The Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to the relief under Section 15G. The Tribunal, however, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income tax referred the following question to the High Court under Section 66 2 of the Act Whether on the facts found by the Tribunal or on record and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 15C of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the new production units added to the existing production units of the assessee at Balur, Alupuram and Muri in respect of buildings, plants and machineries and directing exemption to be granted under the aforesaid section accordingly?
In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in question one more center was established at Muri and there were also extensions to the existing factories at Balur and Alupuram.
In the assessment year 1960 61 the respondent claimed relief under Section 15C of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 briefly the Act in respect of the fresh capital outlay at Muri as well as of the additional investments in the form of extensions to the existing factory premises, installation of new plant and machinery etc.
