TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Rs. 45,000. It is common ground that the bills in respect of the aforesaid expenses were not received during the relevant accounting year. However, what the learned counsel for the assessee says is that these expenses are foreseen expenses and they relate to the year of account and therefore the assessee made a provision therefor, notwithstanding that the bills were not received. He drew our attention to the fact that subsequently the assessee had made payments in respect of the aforesaid provision and in the year of payment, no deduction has been claimed. Our attention was drawn to Exhibit-2 of the paperbook, where the details of the payments made subsequently have been given. Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and having regard to the fact that the expenses were not claimed in the next year and also having regard to the fact that these are usual expenses which are not unforeseen and for which the assessee is entitled to make a provision, we set aside the orders of the departmental authorities and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer, who may verify whether the expenses pertain to these y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Tribunal has held: "In I.T.A. No. 1251 (Pune) of 1991, ground No. 1 reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities have erred in not treating the poultry shed as plant and machinery and in withdrawing the depreciation to the tune of Rs. 5,17,128. 2. This issue stands covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Venkateshwara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174 and CIT v. Anand Theatres [2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC). Accordingly, we decline to interfere and dismiss the ground." 6. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal should not be followed because in the said order, there is no discussion about the nature and functions of the poultry sheds. According to him, the Tribunal has merely followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Venkateshwara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174 without appreciating the fact that in the said judgment, the issue related to the claim of investment allowance under section 32A and the claim was rejected by the Supreme Court on the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-3-2002 in which the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corpn. has been considered and it has been held that the poultry sheds must be treated as plant for the purpose of allowing depreciation. It was further pointed out that in this order, the Tribunal has considered the opinion of Dr. P.V. Rao, Director of Research (Veterinary), Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University setting out the structural, constructional and functional aspects of the poultry sheds and has opined that they cannot be considered as mere buildings and should be considered as plant. Reliance was placed on the order of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Bhagyalakshmi Hatcheries, dated 30-1-2002, wherein also the special design, construction and functions of the poultry sheds have been considered elaborately and it has been held that the poultry sheds have to be regarded as plant and not as building. Reliance was also placed on the order of the Hyderabad Tribunal dated April, 1992 in the same case where the opinion of Dr. P.V. Rao has been noticed and the nature of functions of poultry sheds have been examined in great detail by the Tribunal and it has been finally ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....large scale or in a scientific manner, on the other hand. He submitted that the nature of the building or shed cannot vary depending upon the person who carries on the business or the scale in which it is carried on. Adverting to Dr. Rao's opinion, he stated that at best, it was only advisory in nature and the Tribunal was not bound by the same. With reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn., he pointed out that the requirement is that the building should serve the technical needs of the business if it is to be considered as plant and since there was a finding by the Tribunal in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. that this requirement was met, the Supreme Court held that the building was a plant. According to Mr. Rajkumar no materials in the present case, to justify such a conclusion. On the basis of these submissions, he contended that the view taken by the Pune Bench in the case of Baramati Agro should not be departed from. 11. In his brief reply, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated his earlier submissions and pointed out that the various aspects of the question have not been considered by the Pune Bench in detail and in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn., where Anand Theatres has been explained and distinguished. Thus, as regards both facts and the legal position, there is a need to re-examine the assessee's claim. In this connection, we should also advert to the various orders of the Benches of the Tribunal in Chandigarh and Hyderabad wherein identical question had been decided in favour of the view that the poultry sheds are plant. These orders of the Tribunal do not appear to have been placed before the Pune Bench, The opinion of Dr. P.V. Rao which has been placed before us in the paperbook and which has formed the basis of the orders of the Hyderabad and Chandigarh Benches of the Tribunal does not appear to have been placed before the Pune Bench and the Bench was deprived of the benefit of these orders as well as the opinion of Dr. Rao. When all the facts relating to the claim have been placed before us and it has also been pointed out that there is a change in the legal position in the sense that the Supreme Court itself in Karnataka Power Corpn.'s case has explained the earlier decision in Anand Theatres and has given a go-by to the concept that a building can never be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the construction are also explained. After explaining all these technicalities in detail, Dr. Rao has summed up the position. He has concluded that the Poultry sheds contribute to the achievement of the following goals:-- (a) Protection from diseases and from exposure to rough, natural elements. (b) Provision of proper light and air circulation. (c) Proper and scientific feeding arrangements. (d) Proper watering system. (e) Proper arrangement for collection of manure and dropping. (f) Proper arrangement for medication and vaccination. (g) Provision of right environment conducive for laying eggs. (h) Proper arrangement for the collection of eggs. (i) Reducing the incidence of mortality to the minimum. He has certified that each of the three types of sheds has its special features so as to facilitate the operations carried on therein to achieve maximum efficiency, minimising the incidence of diseases and mortality. He has further stated that the egg laying capacity of the bird is materially enhanced because of the environmental facilities, construction and design of the sheds. 15. The opinion of the expert has not been contradicted on behalf of ....