Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

able. Affirming the same, I return an answer to the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

34. During the assessment year, the company acquired loose tools worth Rs. 24,401 (apart from other equipment) for the running of its industrial establishment. The ITO disallowed the rebate thereon on the ground that the items being loose tools were not machinery or plant and, therefore, the company was entitled only to replacement and no depreciation on the value thereof. Similarly, the claim for development rebate in respect of these items was also disallowed. The AAC upheld the disallowance of these items. The company appealed to the Tribunal which also agreed with the authorities below and rejected its claim that even these loose tools and implements were plant or machinery and, therefore, the asses-see-company was entitled to depreciation, extra shift allowance and development rebate on the value thereof. The question raised is now in these terms:

"Whether tools and implements and works instruments costing Rs. 24,401 are plant or machinery on which depreciation, extra shift allowance and development rebate were admissible ?"

35. Now, there is no dispute here that the relevant equipment purchased by the company is directly and intimately connected with the running of its factory, A reference to the enumerated loose tools and implements in this context would show that these are obviously required for the working, maintenance and repair of the industrial establishment. The sole issue that, therefore, arises is whether these loose tools and implements are within the ambit of the word "plant or machinery", as used in the statute. Mr. Sibal, on behalf of the assessee, did not contend that these loose tools could appropriately come within the ambit of the word "machinery". The matter is thus put in a narrower compass and it is only to be determined whether the word "plant" would adequately cover this equipment.

40. In view of the provisions of Section 43(3), on principle, and in the light of of the abovesaid authorities, we are clearly of the view that loose tools and implements in the present case would be "plant", on which depreciation, extra shift allowance and development rebate would become admissible. I answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the asses-see.

41. Parties to bear their own costs in the references.

Bal Raj Tuli, J.

42. I entirely agree.