TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- 1. The Assessee company is the appellant herein and it is carrying on the business of building products like asbestos etc., and it filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 21.09.2012 with a returned income of Rs. 38,22,56,810/- and the same was processed under Section 143[1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short ''the IT Act''] on 21.08.2014 and it was selected for scrutiny. A notice under Section 143[2] of the IT Act was issued on 08.08.2013 and thereafter, it was heard on various occasions. The issue only pertains to the claim of depreciation with regard to machineries used by the appellant/assessee Company for Pollution Control Measures. 2. The appellant/assessee Company before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gle study in order to have an idea about the air pollution control equipments. The ITAT, based on the Google search study, had concluded as follows:- 7.From the above, it is clear that the Air Pollution Control devices or equipments, specified in the depreciation table, supra, are a series of devices which would prevent a variety of different pollutants, both gaseous and solid, from entering the atmosphere, mainly the exhaust gases passing through the Industrial stacks. These systems [in the industrial parlance, a group of integrated plant and machinery for an independent sub-function], if they are installed in the plant in the exhaust pipes or stacks which led them to atmosphere, they would reduce the air pollution significantly. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stified in relying on an evidence, which was never a part of its record? 2) Does not the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal violate the principles of natural justice, when it has not afforded an opportunity to this appellant to rebut fresh evidence, especially when the said evidence based on 'google study' is the reason for dismissing the appeal of the appellant? 3) Is not pulveriser, duct collector and ball mill, air pollution controlling equipment as per R-6-IIImachinery and plant-3[viii][c] and hence, entitled for 100% depreciation? and 4)Whether the equipments are air pollution control devices or systems, which are entitled for higher depreciation? (3)Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per sub-section [1] of Section 131, the authorities meant for the purpose of Income Tax Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matter, viz., [a]discovery and inspection ; [b]enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath ; [c]compelling the production of books of account and other documents ; and [d] issuing commissions and assuming for the sake of argument, the report of the Chartered Engineer produced before the Assessing Officer which was also referred to by CIT [Appeals], lack necessary particulars and an opportunity should have been afforded to the appellant/assessee to take o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties have the same powers that are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - the details of which, have been enumerated in the earlier paragraphs. (7)Rule 29 of the Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963 also speaks about the production of additional evidence and Rule 30 speaks about the mode of taking additional evidence and it is relevant to extract the same:- Rule 29:-Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal:- The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or f....