Appeals reinstated, delay condoned, higher depreciation granted, CIT's order found invalid

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, reinstating the ITO's original assessment order. The delay in filing appeals was condoned due to oversight by the Chartered Accountant. Higher depreciation and investment allowance on dumpers and water tanks were granted, with the Tribunal finding the CIT's order under section 263 regarding depreciation and investment allowance to be invalid.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against the order passed by CIT under section 263 for assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.
2. Grant of higher depreciation and investment allowance on dumpers and water tanks.
3. Validity of CIT's order under section 263 regarding depreciation and investment allowance.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The appeals were filed late by 509 days, and the assessee sought condonation of delay. The delay was attributed to oversight by the Chartered Accountant in filing the appeals. The Tribunal, after considering affidavits and submissions, condoned the delay in filing the appeals.

Issue 2: Grant of Depreciation and Investment Allowance
The CIT's order under section 263 directed the ITO to grant depreciation on dumpers at a lower rate of 15% instead of 30%. The CIT also disallowed investment allowance on dumpers and water tanks for assessment year 1983-84. The assessee contended that the higher depreciation and investment allowance were justified based on the nature of business and past decisions. The Department argued that the ITO's orders were erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

Issue 3: Validity of CIT's Order under Section 263
The Tribunal reviewed past decisions and statutory provisions related to depreciation and investment allowance. It noted that dumpers were essential for the initial earth-moving stage in road construction, justifying higher depreciation. The Tribunal found no justification for denying investment allowance on dumpers and water tanks, as they were treated as plant assets. The Tribunal held that the original assessment order was not erroneous, setting aside the CIT's order under section 263.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, reinstating the ITO's original assessment order.

---