TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts in the asst. yr. 1993-94. The assessee is a company and it is engaged in the business of civil engineering and construction work for industrial units. In the claim for depreciation, the assessee included a sum of Rs. 34,82,091. This was nothing but the cost of scaffolding materials, which were purchased during the previous year. The assessee claimed 100 per cent depreciation on these scaffolding materials on the ground that each item of the material did not exceed Rs. 5,000. The AO called for the details with regard to purchase of these scaffolding materials and he noticed that the scaffolding materials of the value of Rs. 4,19,440 purchased under Bill No. 18 dt.23rd March, 1993from M/s High Reach Construction Equipment (P) Ltd., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) confirmed the order of AO making the disallowance of depreciation. Against this order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. As far as the facts in asst. yr. 1993-94 are concerned, they are as follows : In this assessment year, the assessee had claimed depreciation at 100 per cent of scaffolding material worth Rs. 22,72,378 which were purchased during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1994-95. In this year also, the AO called for the details with regard to the date of purchase of the scaffolding materials and their use for the purpose of business of the assessee. On examination of such details, the AO noticed that the entire scaffolding materials were purchased from companies in Delhi, namely, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only after the end of the previous year since no details of goods received notes were available. 5. Thus a total value of Rs. 5,94,818 representing the scaffolding materials not used for the purpose of the business of the assessee, was disallowed by the AO. The AO further noticed that goods of the value of Rs. 1,61,418 and Rs. 2,02,866 purchased from Goel Trading Company were purchased under Invoice No.30th March, 1994and31st March, 1994, respectively. The goods received Note in respect of both the invoices were dt.31st March, 1994. The time of delivery of these goods was recorded as4.00 P.M.Since these materials reached the assessee only on31st March, 1994at4.00 P.M., claim for depreciation was disallowed by the AO on the basis that it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciation is found to be not admissible. Considering the fact that this is only a legal issue, we are of the view that the same can be admitted for adjudication. We will consider this additional ground at the appropriate time. 8. As far as merits of the disallowance made by the Revenue authorities are concerned, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. (2000) 163 CTR (Del) 498 : (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and in the case of CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 162 CTR (Ker) 528 : (2000) 244 ITR 452 (Ker). In the aforesaid decision, it has been held by theHon'ble Courtthat the word "used for the purpose of business" used in s. 32 for grant of depreciation includes pas....