ORDER SHEET ITA NO.126 OF 2000 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE IN MATTER OF : C I T W B-IV,CAL. Versus M/S.THE INDIAN TEXTILE CO.LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 11th September, 2014. Md.Nizamuddin,advocate appeared on request Court : Since none appears when matter is called on for hearing, Md.Nizamuddin, learned advocate, who normally appears on behalf of revenue is requested to appear in this matter. learned senior Central Government Advocate is directed to regularise his appointment. 2 We find that appeal was admitted and Rule was issued on 21st March, 2000 on following question:- Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, and in view of provision of section 2(7)(c) of Finance Act, 1978, Ld.Tribunal was justified-in-law in upholding decision of CIT(A) in treating assessee company as Industrial Company , while denied by Assessing Officer? However, from report dated 27th June, 2014 prepared by Assistant Registrar, Appeal Section, O.S., it appears that appellant/revenue did not take delivery of Rule from Department for service upon respondent. Heard Md.Nizamuddin. We find that C.I.T.(A) while directing Assessing Officer to treat status of appellant as industrial company had held as under:- Before me it is stated that appellant is doing bleaching, dyeing, embroidery on silk and stitching and these corporations are in-house. Further appellant employed four charges persons as to do labour for these activities. Rent of activities are got done on job basis. It is further stated that C.I.T.(A) has already treated status of appellant as industrial company 3 for Assessment Year 1985-86 and decision has been accepted by department. It was further stated that status accepted for assessment year 1986-87 assessment for 1987-88 also. Further there has been no change in circumstances or in business activities and case law cited by Ld.Deputy commissioner of Income Tax have been over ruled by later Judgment of Gujarat High Court reported in 163 ITR 394. I have considered submissions. It has already been held by my predecessor for Assessment Year 1985-86 vide his order dated 6.6.89 in para 11 that status of company should be that of Industrial company. Following that decision Assessing Officer is directed to treat status of appellant as Industrial Company. Tribunal declining to interfere with order of CIT(A) had held as follows:- 4. issue is already covered by Supreme Court decision in Addl. CITS Vs.- Kalsi Tyre (P) Ltd. 144 ITR (Statute) 13 where processing of goods were considered as industrial activity. Similar vies were expressed by Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66. Hon ble 4 Delhi High Court in Nulook (P) Ltd. 157 ITR 253 has held that making of clothes or garments to order of customers constituted manufacturing or processing of goods. 5. We are fully satisfied that law has already settled issue. So there is no need to interfere with order of CIT(A) who has considered status of company as in Industrial company. same is hereby upheld. Since we find that department has accepted order for Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88 whereby appellant was treated as industrial company, there is no merit in appeal. appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to appearing parties on priority basis. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) sb. CIT, WB-IV, Calcutta v. M/s. Indian Textile Co. Ltd