Later circulars cannot alter earlier assessment-year relief; fork lifts qualified for investment allowance on recorded findings.

A later Board circular could not be applied to grant section 80HHC relief for assessment year 1987-88, because the issue was already covered against the assessee by binding Supreme Court authority and the Court's own earlier decision; that question was answered against the assessee. For fork lifts, the claim to investment allowance succeeded because there was no recorded finding that higher depreciation had been allowed on the basis of their being road transport vehicles, and the Tribunal's finding that the machinery was used in manufacturing and qualified for investment allowance was based on evidence and required no interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80HHC for the assessment year 1987-88 on the strength of a later Board Circular. (ii) Whether fork lifts were entitled to investment allowance on the footing that higher depreciation had been granted treating them as road transport vehicles.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80HHC for the assessment year 1987-88 on the strength of a later Board Circular.

Analysis: The issue was held to be covered against the assessee by binding Supreme Court authority and by the Court's own earlier decision. The later circular could not govern the assessment year in question.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether fork lifts were entitled to investment allowance on the footing that higher depreciation had been granted treating them as road transport vehicles.

Analysis: There was no finding by the Tribunal or the other authorities that higher depreciation had been granted on fork lifts as road transport vehicles, so the question as framed did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's factual finding that the machinery was used in the manufacture of articles and was eligible for investment allowance was based on appreciation of evidence and warranted no interference.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of with one question decided against the assessee and the other in its favour, resulting in divided success and no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A later circular cannot override the law applicable to the relevant assessment year, and a pure question of law must arise from the Tribunal's order on the basis of recorded findings before it can be answered by the Court.

---