1 - . 127 2002 Income tax Appeal No of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ----- - . 127 2002 Income tax Appeal No of : 14.7.2010 Date of decision - - , Commissioner of Income tax II Amritsar --- Appellant Versus / . M s Embrocia Farms Private Limited , Village Kotli District Gurdaspur --- Respondent --- : . CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL . HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- : PRESENT . . . , Ms Navender P K Singh Advocate . for the appellant --- , . AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J , - This order will dispose of two appeals Income tax . 127 153 2002 , Appeal Nos and of preferred by the Revenue 1987-88 1986-87, pertaining to the assessment years and , respectively as the facts and the question of law involved in 2 - . 127 2002 Income tax Appeal No of . , , both is common The facts have however been taken from . 127 2002. ITA No of The Revenue has claimed that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal for : adjudication by this Court “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee which is running poultry / . 80- 32- far is entitled to deductions u ss J and A - . of the Income tax Act ” The assessee filed return for the assessment year 1987-88 . 16,85,800/-. , declaring loss of Rs Accordingly the . 93,750/- assessee claimed deduction in the sum of Rs 80- .3,92,548/- under Section J and of Rs under Section 32- , 1961 ( “ ). A of the Income Tax Act for short the Act” - , , The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Special Range , Amritsar disallowed the claim of the assessee referred to , above observing that since the business activities carried on by the assessee were not considered to be of an industrial 3 - . 127 2002 Income tax Appeal No of undertaking as held in the cases pertaining to assessment 1984-85 1985-86, years and it was not possible to entertain 1986-87 the claim of the assessee for the assessment years 1987-88 . 143(3) and also Assessment under Section of the , , . , Act was thus completed at income of Rs nil vide order 17.3.1993. dated The assessee challenged the said order by . preferring appeal - ( ), The Commissioner of Income tax Appeals , [( “ ( ) ], Amritsar for short the CIT A ” following the order of the - , Income tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1984-85 1985-86, 9.11.1994 and held vide order dated that - , , the assessee company was an industrial unit and thus . entitled to claim deductions It accordingly issued a direction - to the assessing officer to allow the claim of the assessee . ( ), respondent Aggrieved by the order of the CIT A the - Revenue carried appeal before the Income tax Appellate , , ( “ ). Tribunal Amritsar Bench Amritsar for short the Tribunal” The Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.12.2001. 4 - . 127 2002 Income tax Appeal No of We have heard learned counsel for the appellant . and have perused the case The question that arises for the , consideration of this Court in these appeals is whether the - assessee respondent which was carrying on the business of Poultry Farm can be said to have been manufacturing or producing goods so as to be termed as an industrial 80- 32- undertaking under the provisions of Sections J and A . of the Act This matter is no longer res integra. The apex Court in . ( ) . CIT v Venkatshwara Hatcheries P Ltd (1999) 237 174 ITR has held that such an assessee is not entitled 32- to investment allowance under Section A and special 80 deduction under Section J are not allowable in respect of , poultry farming fisheries and dairy farming as they do not , , manufacture or produce articles or things and thus are not ‘ . an industrial undertaking’ In view of the aforesaid comprehensible , - observations of the Supreme Court the assessee company cannot be termed as an industrial undertaking and once that , is so it is legally not entitled to claim deductions referred to . , , above The substantial question of law noticed above is 5 - . 127 2002 Income tax Appeal No of , therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the . . assessee The appeals stand disposed of accordingly ( ) AJAY KUMAR MITTAL JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR ) GOEL 14, 2010 July JUDGE * * rkmalik