COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under S. 256(2) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (for short the Act), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, in respect of the asst. yr. 1985 -86, for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) DURING the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee -company had claimed Rs. 31,56,117 as repairs and replacement of central air -conditioning plant and insulated chilled water piping re -routing. Rejecting the stand of the assessee that the said expenses were incurred on current repairs to maintain and preserve an already existing assets, the AO held that the assessee had renewed or replaced a substantial part of the existing plant whereby it got a benefit of enduring nature. He accordingly directed that the said amount shall be capitalised, on which depreciation will be allowed to the assessee. The AO also noticed that the assessee had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 2,01,839 on the cost of fire -fighting equipment. Holding that the fire -fighting equipment was not integral part of plant and machinery directly connected with the publication or other business activities carried on by the assessee, the AO rejected the said claim. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful. The assessee carried the matter further in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the expenditure of Rs. 31,56,117 was incurred by the assessee to preserve and maintain an already existing plant i.e. air -conditioning plant and no new asset was brought into existence. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the entire said expenditure as revenue expenditure. Insofar as the claim of investment allowance on fire -fighting equipment was concerned, the Tribunal found that the fire equipment was in the industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of the assessee, which is printing and publishing of newspapers and magazines and, therefore, the requirement under S. 32A (iii) was satisfied. Accordingly, it allowed the said claim made by the assessee. It is with reference to this order, the above questions have been proposed for reference.

(3.) AS noticed above while allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the air -conditioning plant the Tribunal has found as a fact that the said expenditure was incurred to preserve and maintain an already existing plant. This is a pure finding of fact and the same having not been challenged by the Revenue, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal holding the said expenditure to be revenue in nature. Similarly while allowing the claim of the assessee for investment allowance on the cost of fire -fighting equipment, the Tribunal has held that the said equipment formed part of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of the assessee of printing and publishing of newspapers and magazines. Again, this finding is not challenged as perverse or unreasonable in the proposed question No. 2. That being so, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the said equipment. No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The application is accordingly dismissed.