TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration:- 1. Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse? 2. Whether in the absence of any evidence to the effect that the machine was put to use before the closure of the financial year and in the absence of documentary evidence in this behalf, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that any amount of depreciation and investment allowance could be deducted? 2. The Assessment Year is 1987-88. On June 30, 1987, the assessee had filed the return declaring the income as Rs. 1,66,17,084/-. The assessee claimed normal depreciation, amounting to Rs. 23,93,038/- on the plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on the following items:- ITEM AMOUNT IN RS. CLAIMED DATE OF OF INSTALLATION....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an appeal before the Tribunal succeeded inasmuch the Tribunal, vide order dated July 15, 2002, held that material placed before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was sufficient to show that the machine was installed before the close of the year. We note below the facts as found and accepted by the Tribunal. 6. The machine namely Widia Special Six Spindle Drilling Machine was received on 24.12.1986. The foundation of the machine was already laid on 22.12.1986 in Hall No. 1 and electrical connections were completed on 27.12.1986. The machine in full working order was handed over for trying out on 29.12.1986 to the manufacturing engineering department. The Tribunal concluded as under: "13.6. We have consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....223; of the grounds of appeal, which is reproduced as under: "d) For claiming depreciation, it is mandatory to establish that plant and machinery were owned and used for its business for production and manufacturing. Admittedly, in the present case the machines were handed over to the production department only for the purpose of trial just two days before the end of the previous year and not for the purpose of production and manufacturing". 9. The above would show that the appellant revenue has conceded to the fact that the machine was handed over to the production department for the purpose of trial two days before the end of the previous year i.e. 29.12.1986. The appellant revenue qualifies its stand by stating that the same was not fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve as well as active user. This Court in the case of Capital Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 123 ITR 404 (Delhi) has held as under:- "Though it is true that a machinery generally depreciates with actual user, the decision indicate that it is not necessary to import this concept in interpreting the expression "used" is the statute. In the first place, a machinery may well depreciate even where it is not used in the business and even due to non-user or being kept idle. Secondly, a very strict correlation between the actual use of machinery and the concept of depreciation would lead to several anomalies and difficulties, for a machinery cannot be used throughout the day and night or even throughout the working hours or e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bio gas plant was installed and put to use in May 1992, as was evident from the assessee‟s letter dated May 19, 1992, to the supplier of the bio gas plant that during trial run, it developed some leakage and other problems, that there was some correspondence with the supplier of the plant in July and August, 1992, and thereafter, the plant was repaired and leakage and other teething problems were solved and normal flaring of methane gas started in October 1992. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact after examining the relevant documents that the entire equipments had been installed and commissioned and put to use in May 1992. The High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the revenue was of the view that it was not in dispute that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anager, we are of the view that it is a plausible view that the machine having been used for the purpose of business cannot be interfered with. Moreover such an aspect is pure question of fact. We do not think, it would be appropriate for this Court to interfere with such a finding when the conclusion as drawn by the Tribunal is not perverse or such which cannot be drawn by any reasonable person or authority on disclosed state of facts. 14. The power of the High Court to interfere with the factual findings of the Tribunal is well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Dass Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, AIR 2000 SC 426 has noted two situations where findings of fact can be interfered with, which are as under: (i) The first situation is, wh....