9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant submitted that he may be permitted to raise an additional question of law of non-consideration of the grounds raised before the Tribunal and also filed an additional typed set of papers containing the copy of the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The relevant assessment years are 1997-98 and 1998-99. The question of law relates to the disallowance of the depreciation claimed with regard to windmills. The assessee claimed that they had purchased the windmills from its sister company and it had been duly recorded in their books of accounts and the entire consideration has also been paid by the assessee. The entire bank loan which was taken by the sister ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee and the fact that the windmills are still hypothecated with the bank in the name of the transferor company, or the fact that the agreement with the TNEB was in the name of the transferor company would not change the position. The conclusion of the appellate authority was further reinforced by the fact that the entire bank loan availed of by the transferor company was repaid by the assessee and not by the transferor company. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal treating the assessee as the owner for the purpose of IT Act in view of the following facts : (1) The windmill is in the possession of the assessee-company, although it stands hypothecated with the Bank of Barod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the sister company had claimed depreciation, he answered in the negative. Therefore, that objection cannot be taken in favour of the appellant. We also find that all the questions raised by the appellant have been effectively answered by the five conclusions drawn by the Tribunal which are extracted above. These are purely questions of fact and the conclusion appears to be correct since the possession is with the assessee. The loan has been discharged by the assessee and the income from the property is assessed in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we do not think that there is an erroneous appreciation of fact or non-consideration of the relevant materials. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that no question of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
