Accelerated depreciation on windmills fails without credible proof of delivery, commissioning and actual use before the cut-off date.

Accelerated depreciation on windmills was denied because the assessee failed to prove that the devices were actually procured, transported, erected, commissioned and put to use before 31-3-1996. The record contained serious inconsistencies in transportation documents, and material from the transporter and supplier indicated delivery to another concern rather than to the assessee. Independent evidence also did not establish that electricity generation before the cut-off date came from the assessee's own windmills, especially where the certificates reflected pooled generation and apportionment among multiple owners. On these facts, the burden of proving actual installation and commissioning was not discharged, and 100% depreciation was held not allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on windmills on the basis that the windmills had been procured, transported, installed and commissioned before 31-3-1996 and had commenced generation of electricity within the relevant previous year.

Analysis: The claim for accelerated depreciation depended on proof that the windmills, being renewable energy devices under Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, were not merely ordered but were actually delivered, erected, commissioned and put to use during the relevant year. The evidence on record showed serious inconsistencies in the transportation documents, and the material obtained from the transporter and supplier supported delivery to another concern rather than to the assessee. The assessee also failed to establish, by reliable independent evidence, that electricity generation was attributable to its own windmills before the cut-off date, especially when the electricity certificates reflected pooled generation and apportionment among multiple wind-farm owners.

Conclusion: The assessee did not discharge the burden of proving actual transportation, installation and commissioning of the windmills before 31-3-1996, and the claim to 100% depreciation was not allowable.

Final Conclusion: The depreciation allowed by the first appellate authority was set aside and the assessment made by the Revenue authorities was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for accelerated depreciation on windmills requires credible proof of procurement, transportation, installation and commissioning, and a presumption of use cannot be drawn where the foundational facts are not established.

---