Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sree Rama Agricultural Poultry Farm on 9 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2002]258ITR336(AP)
JUDGMENT S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "B" (for short, "the Tribunal"), dated October 22, 1999, in I. T. A. No. 998/H of 1994.
2. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm doing business in hatchery. The assessee-firm filed a return of income admitting for the assessment year 1989-90 a taxable income of Rs. 26,540 and agricultural income of Rs. 5,93,478. The assessment was computed on a total income of Rs. 1,45,540. The Assessing Officer while making the assessment allowed depreciation at 100 per cent. on cages worth Rs. 3,16,453.
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax revised that order on the ground that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer allowing 100 per cent. depreciation on cages is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, by virtue of the power conferred under Section 263 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the judgment of this court in CIT v. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. , in which it was held that bottles would constitute plant and, therefore, 100 per cent. depreciation could be allowed, allowed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is essentially on a question of fact. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Although it is the stand of the Revenue throughout that only a series of cages collectively constitute the "plant", no evidence is placed before the Tribunal or before this court to support the plea.
4. On the other hand, the ratio decidendi of the judgment in Margadarsi Chit Fund (P.) Ltd.'s case , would squarely support the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. This appeal does not involve any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.