Agrawal Flooring Stone Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

R.M. Lodha, J.—By the order dated 28-8-1992, the income tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for answer by this Court:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the dumpers in the hands of the assessee were road transport vehicles and were not entitled to additional depreciation and investment allowance?"

We have heard refer to the facts as the facts stated in the statement of case, are not disputed and may not be treated as part of this order.

The counsel for the parties are ad idem that the aforesaid question stands answered by the Division Bench common decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Karim Stone Contractor [1997] 93 Taxman 271, Raj Flooring Stone Co. [D.B.I.T.R. No. 38A/1987] and Agarwal Flooring Stone Co. [D.B.I.T.R. No. 38B/1987] reported in Abdul Karim Stone Contractor case (supra).

One of the parties in the aforesaid judgment is the present assessee.

The Division Bench of this Court held that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation allowance but was not entitled to investment allowance.

That the dumpers in the hands of the assessee were not road transport vehicles, is clearly seen from the circular issued by the C.B.D.T on 24-2-1975. The counsel for the revenue does not dispute this aspect. In view of this admitted position and the judgment of this court cited supra, our answer to the question is thus:

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the dumpers in the hands of the assessee were road transport vehicles; that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation; that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance.

Order accordingly. No costs.