Depreciation Claims Allowed for Cranes, Penalty Removed; Higher Rate for Truck-Mounted Cranes Upheld, Except Cole 620M.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation claims for cranes kept ready for use, interpreting "used for business purposes" broadly. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted due to the allowed depreciation claims. A higher depreciation rate for truck-mounted cranes was upheld, classifying them under "motor lorries." However, for Crane Model No. Cole 620M, the claim was disallowed as it was not ready for use by the financial year's end. The Tribunal's decisions were consistent, except for the Third Member's stance on the Cole 620M crane.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation on new cranes for the assessment year 1991-92.
2. Rate of depreciation on truck-mounted cranes.
3. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1991-92.
4. Depreciation on new cranes for the assessment year 1993-94.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation on New Cranes for the Assessment Year 1991-92:
The primary issue was whether the cranes purchased at the end of the financial year were used for business purposes, thereby qualifying for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that the cranes were ready for use and thus eligible for depreciation, even if not actively used by the lessee.

- Crane Model No. Cole 620M: The crane was purchased on 16-3-1991, with temporary registration obtained on 19-3-1991 and dispatched on 27-3-1991. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed depreciation, arguing the crane was not used by the end of the financial year and the letter of intent from ONGC was transferred only in April 1991. The CIT(A) upheld this view, emphasizing the crane was not used actively or passively. The Tribunal, however, recognized the crane was purchased and dispatched within the financial year, but the Third Member concluded it was not ready for use by 31-3-1991, thus disallowing depreciation.

- Crane Model No. Cole 825: The crane was kept as a standby from 22-3-1991. The AO disallowed depreciation, noting the crane was not required as a standby and was not used commercially. The CIT(A) upheld this, but the Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the crane was kept ready for use as a backup, thus allowing depreciation.

2. Rate of Depreciation on Truck-Mounted Cranes:
The assessee claimed a higher depreciation rate for truck-mounted cranes, arguing they should be classified under "motor lorries" rather than "plant and machinery."

- The Tribunal referred to several case laws, including Gujco Carriers v. CIT and CIT v. Madan & Co., which supported the higher depreciation rate for mobile cranes. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply the higher rate of depreciation.

3. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 1991-92:
The penalty was imposed for alleged concealment of income due to the disallowed depreciation claim.

- The Tribunal, having allowed the depreciation claim on the cranes, concluded there was no concealment of income. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

4. Depreciation on New Cranes for the Assessment Year 1993-94:
The issue was whether the cranes imported during the year were used for business purposes, qualifying for depreciation.

- The AO disallowed depreciation, noting the cranes were only cleared from customs on 12-3-1993 and not used by 31-3-1993. The CIT(A) upheld this, following the precedent set for the assessment year 1991-92. The Tribunal, however, found that the cranes were ready for use and the assessee had placed tenders with ONGC, thus allowing the depreciation claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claims for the cranes kept ready for use, emphasizing a broader interpretation of "used for business purposes." The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the higher depreciation rate for truck-mounted cranes was upheld. The Third Member's decision aligned with the Tribunal's broader interpretation, except for Crane Model No. Cole 620M, where the claim was disallowed due to the crane not being ready for use by the end of the financial year.

---