CST DEPUTY Vs. JINACHANDRAN M K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revenue is the petitioner in this batch of four cases. In T.R.C.Nos. 154/91 and 160/91 the respondent is the same person who is an assessee under the Agricultural Income Tax Act. The respondent in T.R.C. 177/82 is a different assessee under the Agricultural Income Tax Act. The first three revisions relate to the years 1975-76,1976-77 and 1977-78 T.R.C. 177/92 relates to the year 1977-78. The order of the Appellate Tribunal relevant for the first three tax revision cases is dated 12-10-1990. The order of the Appellate Tribunal relevant for T.R.C. 177/92 is dated 25-1-1991. A common question arises for consideration in these cases. So we are proposing to dispose of the four revisions by this common judgment.

(2.) We heard counsel for the revenue senior Government Pleader Shri V.C. James and also counsel for the respondent Mr. Jose Joseph. The only short question that arises for consideration in these case is whether the respondent assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of sprinkler equipment. Admittedly the sprinkler was being purchased on hire purchase basis. The assessing authority as also the first appellate authority negatived depreciation on the ground that the ownership is not with the assessee and hence depreciation is not admissible. The Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in disposing of the appeals stated thus:

(3.) Though more than one question has been framed in each revision it is agreed that the only question that arises for consideration is whether depreciation claimed by the assessee on the sprinkler equipment which was being purchased under hire purchase basis is allowable. S.5(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 is to the following effect: