DY. CIT Vs. NATURAL FRAGRANCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed, as claimed by the learned counsel for the assessee, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was an inadvertent error on his part and, accordingly, the word "Deputy" was used as a prefix to Commissioner of Income Tax and this mistake occurred, inasmuch as, Sri Abhishek Kumar, Income Tax Inspector, who was authorized to affirm the affidavit in support of the appeal, was working in the office of Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it could not be said to be a mistake, and that, the appeal was not by an incompetent authority. However, we give credence to the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, who has taken upon himself that it was his mistake, which has caused the word "Deputy" to be used as prefix to Commissioner. An application has been filed for removing the said mistake. We allow the amendment application (CLMA No. 12177 of 2012) and, thereby, the mistake is removed and the prefix "Deputy" is removed from "Commissioner of Income Tax".

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the question was, whether the respondent assessee is involved in manufacturing activities in Uttarakhand from its industrial unit situate therein? The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is involved in manufacture and sale of fragrance. The Assessing Officer found that in order to complete the said manufacturing activity, respondent assessee is required to procure flowers, which he does within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Assessing Officer found that instead of bringing the flowers, thus purchased, on the basis of job work, assessee extracts the oil contents from the flowers at Uttar Pradesh and, thereafter, such oil is brought in the factory of the respondent assessee situate in Uttarakhand and with the help of the extracted oil, the essence is manufactured. The Assessing Officer felt that in the whole process, the most important part of the manufacturing activity is undertaken in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the minimal in the State of Uttarakhand and, as a result, respondent assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.