COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. CHANDRA LITHO PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue :

(2.) FROM the questions referred to above, it will be clear that the dispute between the parties is as to whether the offset machinery which runs on electricity, used by the assessee in the course of its business, would constitute "other electrical machinery" occurring in item III(iii) E-3(b) of column I, Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, so as to enable the assessee to claim depreciation at the rate of 10%. The Income-tax Officer has proceeded on the basis' that since the offset machinery cannot generate electricity, it will not fall within the expression "other electrical machinery" and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation at 10%, while the assessee's claim was that since the use of the offset machinery cannot be had without the use of electricity, it should be taken to fall within the expression" other electrical machinery". The Tribunal agreed with the contention of the assessee that since the use of the offset machinery cannot be had except with the use of electricity, it should be taken to fall within the expression "other electrical machinery". The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal in this case could be accepted as tenable. This view taken by the Tribunal was the subject matter of a batch of tax cases before this court in CIT v. M. S. Sahadevan [1980] 123 ITR 820 and this court has disagreed with the view taken by the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, in that case this court did not accept either the contention of the Revenue or the contention of the assessee, but has chosen to take the view that the nature of the machinery should decide as to whether it falls within "other electrical machinery" or not. The learned judges have expressed the view thus (p. 824) :