COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JAIPUR UDYOG LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of the assessment year 1967-68, the claim of extra shift allowance equal to normal depreciation has been made by the assessee. The INcome-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated September 8, 1982, referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated October 31, 1980 :

(2.) IN an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was contended that in case of assets which were in use for more than 30 days, but less than 180 days extra shift allowance should have been allowed equal to the normal allowance for the full year. Since the appeal in the year 1965-66, was rejected this appeal was also rejected and it was observed that the extra shift allowance can in no circumstances be more than the normal allowance for a particular asset.

(3.) FOR the purpose of extra shift allowance, it was found that the assessee is eligible. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of computation. Under Rule 5 it is provided that the plant and machinery which has been used by the assessee in its business for a period of 180 days or more, it will be entitled for 100 per cent. allowance and where the plant and machinery have been used for less than 180 days, but more than 30 days, the allowance would be 50 per cent. The Tribunal has proceeded that Rule 5 has no application to the case of the extra shift allowance in view of the decision in J.K. Synthetics' case [1979] 118 ITR 629 (All) referred to above as necessary provisions for extra shift allowance have been made in Appendix I, Part I, and the only thing which has to be seen is as to whether the concern has worked double shift or triple shift and the working of each item and machinery with regard to number of days it has worked is not to be seen.