Tribunal grants investment allowance for mining dumpers, rejects challenge to assessment order.

The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting the investment allowance on dumpers used in mining activities while rejecting the challenge to the validity of the assessment order. The decision was based on the manufacturing nature of the activities carried out by the assessee, as supported by relevant legal precedents.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147.
2. Eligibility of investment allowance on dumpers used in mining activities.
3. Reliance on Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Shiv Construction.

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147:
The assessee contended that the assessment order was bad in law and illegal, alleging it was merely a change of opinion and sought its quashing. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, stating that no arguments were presented on this issue, hence rejecting ground No. (1) regarding the invalidity of proceedings under section 143(3).

Issue 2: Eligibility of investment allowance on dumpers used in mining activities:
The main contention revolved around the eligibility of investment allowance on dumpers used in mining activities. The assessee argued that as they were engaged in manufacturing activity by extracting stone/rubble and crushing it into various products, they were entitled to the investment allowance. Various judgments were cited to support this claim, emphasizing that dumpers should be treated as plant and not road transport vehicles. The tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing precedents where similar activities were considered manufacturing, thus allowing the investment allowance on the cost of dumpers used in mining activities.

Issue 3: Reliance on Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Shiv Construction:
The tribunal discussed the reliance placed on the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Shiv Construction. It was argued that this decision was not applicable to the present case as it involved a firm engaged in construction activities, not mining. The tribunal emphasized that the judgments cited by the Department were not relevant to the mining and quarrying activities of the assessee. Instead, the tribunal relied on other judgments supporting the manufacturing nature of the assessee's activities to grant the investment allowance on dumpers.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting the investment allowance on dumpers used in mining activities while rejecting the challenge to the validity of the assessment order. The decision was based on the manufacturing nature of the activities carried out by the assessee, as supported by relevant legal precedents.

---