High Court Of Allahabad
CIT vs. Radla Machinery Export
Section 32A
Asst. Year 1982-83 & 1983-84
R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ.
IT Ref. Nos. 17 of 1991 & 251 of 1992
30th September, 2005
JUDGMENT
By the court :
These two references under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Department in respect of the same assessee for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84. In Ref. No. 17 of 1991 the following question of law has been referred :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee’s claim of investment allowance under s. 32A on computer was allowable ?”
2. Whereas in Ref. No. 251 of 1992 the following question of law has been referred :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee’s claim for investment allowance under s. 32A as well as additional depreciation on computer was allowable ?”
3. The assessee is a registered firm and was engaged in the business of pumps and electrical motors and was sole distributor of Jyoti Pump and most of its supplies were made to the Government Department. It installed a computer. During the asst. yr. 1982-83 it claimed that the computer is a plant and would qualify for investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act. The said claim was rejected by the assessing authority. In appeal the authority came to the conclusion that the assessee had installed the computer mainly for offering services to the outsiders and in the years to come substantial receipts have been disclosed for the services rendered. The CIT(A) held that the computer constitutes plant and machinery within the meaning of s. 32 of the IT Act, 1961, and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to get investment allowance in respect of the computer. This order was confirmed in further appeal filed by the Department before the Tribunal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Today we have held in IT Ref. No. 68 of 1987 connected with IT Ref. No. 275 of 1991, CIT vs. Bajrang Dal Mills (2006) 202 CTR (All) 332 that “ultrasound machine” and “X-ray machine”, etc., are plant and produce “article or things”.
6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision we answer the aforesaid question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, in both the references. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
[Citation : 283 ITR 185]
