ASIATIC SEA FOODS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to us for decision in this income-tax referred case is as follows :

(2.) THE facts leading to the above reference can be summarised thus ; THE assessee is a registered firm doing business in sea foods. It also owns a freezing plant and ice cracker. THE assessment year in question is 1973-74. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee claimed triple shift allowance in the return submitted. THE Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim. According to him, there is a specific provision for refrigeration plants at item No. (13) in Section III-B of the depreciation table and the asset being a refrigeration plant the rate provided therein is applicable. In that view of the matter, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for extra shift allowance. As against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. While allowing the appeal, the Commissioner found that the assessee is entitled to claim extra shift allowance. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer was directed to allow the multiple shift allowance as claimed by the assessee. As against the said order, the Department filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. THE Tribunal found that the freezing plant is part of the refrigeration plant and the assessee is not entitled to extra shift allowance. THEreafter the assessee filed an application for reference which was rejected by the Tribunal as per order dated January 13, 1981. THE assessee, therefore, filed an application before this court under Section 256(2) of the Act as O. P. No. 3533 of 1981-B. In that 0. P. this court directed the Tribunal to refer the case as per order dated June 16, 1983.

(3.) NO doubt, the freezing plant is part of the refrigeration plant. The air-conditioning chamber and the freezing chamber are parts of the plant. Of course, the Supreme Court said the word "plant" must be given a wide meaning as has been held in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44. That does not mean such interpretation must always be in favour of the assessee. It depends on the context and facts of each case. Even if a wide interpretation is given to the word "plant", the statutory requirements for the grant of such allowance cannot be dispensed with. What is provided in the rule is that the assessee must establish that it has worked double shift or triple shift, as the case may be, for claiming extra shift depreciation ' allowance. The view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the plant must be kept ready for 24 hours as aforesaid is a matter which must be established within the framework of the above rule regarding the grant of extra shift depreciation allowance. Since the assessee has failed to establish the requirements for obtaining extra shift allowance discussed hereinabove, we do not propose to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.