Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated March 30, 2001, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue has come up in appeal which was admitted by an order dated April 4, 2003. Three several questions of law were formulated. The first question reads as follows : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that vibro bed dryer is an item covered under Appendix 1 III.(3)(iii)A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and is entitled for 100 per cent. depreciation?" 2. Mr. Bhowmick, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue, drew our attention to the Schedule appearing in the Appendix to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and wanted to impress upon us that vibro bed dryer is not an energy saving device as per the aforesaid Schedule and, therefore, 100 per cent. depreciation could not have been permitted. Mr. Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the assessee, drew our attention to item No. 3C of the Schedule applicable to "waste heat recovery equipment". He submitted that there is a clear finding that the consumption of electricity was reduced by 40 per cent. Therefore, the instrument in question is eligible for 100 per cent. depreciation. He in support of his submission relied on an earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT v. Assam Brook Ltd. I.T.A. No. 370 (Cal.) of 1990, wherein the learned Tribunal allowed 100 per cent. depreciation in the case of identical instrument. It appears from the said judgment that the aforesaid view was taken by the learned Tribunal following the earlier views expressed in the case of Warren Tea Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 193 (Cal) of 1990. Mr. Bhowmick replied by stating that the Schedule on a plain reading does not appear to cover an equipment which is merely energy efficient. It applies only to those items installed for the purpose of saving consumption of energy. Mr. Bhowmick may be correct but we express no opinion with regard thereto. The judgment in the case of Assam Brook Ltd. (supra) was rendered by the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration, the views of experts recorded by…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492