High Court Of Andhra Pradesh
CIT vs. Sree Rama Agricultural Poultry Farm
Asst. Year 1989-90
S.R. Nayak & S. Ananda Reddy, JJ.
ITT Appeal No. 80 of 2001
9th August, 2001
J.V. Prasad, for the Appellant : None appeared, for the Respondent
S.R. NAYAK J. :
This appeal filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “B” (for short, “the Tribunal”), dt. 22nd Oct., 1999, in ITA No. 998/H of 1994. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm doing business in hatchery. The assessee-firm filed a return of income admitting for the asst. yr. 1989-90 a taxable income of Rs. 26,540 and agricultural income of Rs. 5,93,478. The assessment was computed on a total income of Rs. 1,45,540. The AO while making the assessment allowed depreciation at 100 per cent, on cages worth Rs. 3,16,453. The CIT revised that order on the ground that the assessment made by the AO allowing 100 per cent, depreciation on cages is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, by virtue of the power conferred under s. 263 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 646 (AP), in which it was held that bottles would constitute plant and, therefore, 100 per cent, depreciation could be allowed, allowed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is essentially on a question of fact. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Although it is the stand of the Revenue throughout that only a series of cages collectively constitute the “plant”, no evidence is placed before the Tribunal or before this Court to support the plea. On the other hand, the ratio decidendi of the judgment in Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd.âs case (supra), would squarely support the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. This appeal does not involve any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[Citation : 258 ITR 336]