9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to create requisite amount of investment allowance reserve to claim investment allowance in respect of cost of plant acquired and used for purposes of business. The latter ground is not arising out of the order of the CIT(A) and was not argued during the course of hearing of the appeal. It is, therefore, not considered. We would only consider the assessee's claim under first proviso to s. 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant-company, during the previous year, acquired and used for its business purposes of construction, wooden shuttering sheets plants and supporting material. The cost of the individual item of above material, being less than Rs. 5,000, the assessee claimed 100 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a unit was not possible. He submitted that even if a single plank or sheet or two planks and sheets can be used in construction work depending upon the area to be constructed. He accordingly submitted that the conclusion of the Assessing Officer relating to functional use of sheets and planks was erroneous. Shri Bajpai further distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Mysore Dasaprakash and submitted that the said decision was not applicable to the facts of the case. In the said decision, their Lordships were concerned with electricity supply system which consisted of rooms constructed, electricity switch boards distribution boards, verandah lights, etc., all these items were held to be part of one integrated el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it cannot be said that for construction any particular minimum number of sheets or scaffoldings were necessary. Thus individual item of shuttering and scaffoldings was plant and as the cost of individual item was less than Rs. 750 (now the limit raised to Rs. 5000), the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 100 per cent. The facts as already noted, being identical, we entirely agree with the reasoning given by the Bench and hold that each shuttering and plank can be put to separate use. The number of items to be used depend upon the size of construction to be carried. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that all shuttering and plank would together constitute a single plant or machinery. Each item is to be treated as a separate plant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is carrying on its business." 6.1 It is thus clear from the aforesaid observations that in the case before the Bench all the bottles were leased out in bulk and were leased out as plant. They were purchased for more than Rs. 750. The case in hand is distinguishable. It cannot be said here that cost of each item of shuttering material is more than the amount provided under proviso to s. 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act. We have also held that each plank or other items of shuttering can be singly used. Therefore, the decision cited by the Revenue has no application. For the aforesaid reason, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation to the assessee under proviso to s. 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act. 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
