COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GEM GRANITES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :

(2.) THE assessment year involved is 1987 88.

(3.) AS far as the second question of law is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has not given any finding at all that the depreciation was granted at a higher rate on the Fork Lifts and the question has been framed as if there is a finding by the Tribunal that higher depreciation was granted on the Fork Lifts on the basis that they are the road transport vehicles. In the absence of any finding by any of the authorities or by the Tribunal that the depreciation on Fork Lifts was granted at a higher rate as applicable to the road transport vehicles, the second question as framed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We also find that the Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that the machinery in question was engaged in the manufacture of articles and the machinery was eligible for the investment allowance claimed by the assessee. We find that the said finding of the Tribunal is arrived on the basis of the appreciation of evidence and materials on record and there are no reasons to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal, as far as the second question of law is concerned. Accordingly, the second question of law referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, in view of the divided success, there will be no order as to costs.