Depreciation classification of electrical machinery left unanswered as factual inquiry on in-built motor and inseparable part was missing.

The reference on depreciation could not be answered on the existing record because the factual basis for applying the governing test was missing. The Madras HC noted that determining whether the offset machinery qualified as "other electrical machinery" required evidence on whether the electric motor was built into the machinery and formed a vital, inseparable part of it. As no such investigation had been made, the questions were returned unanswered and the Tribunal was directed to gather the necessary material and decide the matter de novo in accordance with that test.

---

---

Issues: Whether the references should be answered on the existing material or returned unanswered to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the governing test for identifying "other electrical machinery".

Analysis: The questions referred depended on whether the offset machinery fell within the relevant depreciation entry. The Court noted that no investigation had been made on the lines indicated in the earlier decision, namely whether the electric motor was in-built into the machinery and formed a vital and inseparable part of it. Since the factual foundation necessary for applying that test was absent, the issue could not be determined in the reference proceedings on the available record.

Conclusion: The questions were returned unanswered and the Tribunal was directed to collect the necessary materials and decide the matter de novo in accordance with the stated test.

Final Conclusion: The reference did not result in a merits determination on the depreciation issue and was sent back for fresh adjudication.

---