COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SIBBAL COLD STORAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under S. 256(1) at the instance of Revenue and the following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this Court :

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the reference are that the assessee is engaged in running a cold storage. While making assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee had received capital subsidy for investment in the new unit at 15% on the total investment. The AO had allowed depreciation on the chamber which is building at the rate of 10% of the cost of its written down value as against depreciation claimed by the assessee at the rate of 15%. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee and the Department approached by way of an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the Department approached the Tribunal for referring the aforesaid two questions of law along with other questions for answer by this Court. However, the Tribunal has referred only two questions for consideration as quoted above. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) SO far as the question No. (ii) whether the word 'plant' includes within its ambit building in which machineries are installed for manufacturing purposes is concerned, it may be said that in fact the plant cannot survive independent of building. Some building has to be there in order to house the plant; and as such, the building which houses the plant is a plant. Therefore, the plant includes within its ambit building in which machineries are housed. The same view has been taken by Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanodia Cold Storage (supra).