1989 (5) TMI 104 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on a generator at 30% rate.
2. Interpretation of rules governing the grant of depreciation.
3. Whether the Tribunal's order gave rise to a question of law.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of depreciation on a generator at 30% rate
The assessee, a registered firm engaged in a khandsari industry, claimed depreciation at 30% on a generator used for its operations. The IAC allowed depreciation at only 15%, citing that the generator was run by diesel and did not fall under the specific category for a higher rate of depreciation. The CIT(A) allowed depreciation at 30%, but the Tribunal reduced it to 20% based on precedents from Delhi Benches. The dispute arose regarding the correct percentage of depreciation allowable on the generator.

Issue 2: Interpretation of rules governing the grant of depreciation
The disagreement stemmed from the interpretation of rules governing the grant of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Rule 5 specifies the percentages at which depreciation should be allowed for different assets used for business purposes. Appendix I of the Rules lists machinery entitled to depreciation, including electric generators. The specific provision in Article 10(xiii) allowed for a 30% depreciation rate for special devices like electric generators. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the rate to 20% involved interpreting the applicable rule and determining the correct percentage of depreciation, leading to a question of law.

Issue 3: Whether the Tribunal's order gave rise to a question of law
The disagreement among the Tribunal members led to a reference application to determine if a question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Accountant Member initially declined to refer the question to the High Court, stating that no question of law was evident. However, the Judicial Member held that a referable question of law did arise, emphasizing the necessity of interpreting the rules governing depreciation. The Third Member, after considering the arguments, concluded that the Tribunal's decision did give rise to a question of law due to the interpretation of statutory rules, which warranted further consideration by the regular Bench.

In conclusion, the case involved a dispute over the correct rate of depreciation on a generator used in the assessee's business operations, highlighting the importance of interpreting relevant rules to determine the allowable percentage. The differing opinions within the Tribunal underscored the complexity of the legal issues involved and the need for a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions governing depreciation.