High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Goyal MG Gases Ltd.
Section 32(1), RULE Appendix I, Item III(3)(v)
Asst. Years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96
Markandey Katju, C.J. & Madan B. Lokur, J.
IT Appeal Nos. 17 of 2000 & 17 of 2005
12th January, 2006
Counsel Appeared
R.D. Jolly & Ajay Jha, for the Appellant : C.S. Aggarwal & Prakash Kumar, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J. :
This income-tax appeal is filed by the CIT, Delhi, under s. 260A of the IT Act related to asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. The question formulated by the Court reads as under :
“Whether Tribunal was correct in giving a finding that the container/tanker mounted on a vehicle was nothing but a big cylinder because it had all attributes of a cylinder ?”
The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 100 per cent on containers/cylinders mounted on trucks. The AO was, however, of the view that since the so-called cylinders were merely containers and were mounted on trucks, the assessee was entitled to depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent as eligible to “plants and machineries”. In his appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the tanks were nothing but cylinders mounted on vehicles. It was also explained that the truck chassis on which the cylinders were mounted were not owned by the assessee but were taken on hire. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s plea, and his order has been upheld by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by the Department. Appendix I of the IT Rules is as follows : “Gas cylinders including valves and regulators”.
These were entitled to depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent at the relevant time. However, plant and machinery was entitled to depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent. The short question is whether the assessee’s item is gas cylinders or a machinery. The assessee submits that the containers/tankers were nothing but were big cylinders as they had all the attributes of a cylinder. He explained that the truck chassis on which the cylinders were mounted were not owned by the assessee but were taken on hire. On the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. There is no dispute that the item in question was gas cylinder, though no doubt a big one. The expression ‘gas cylinders’ used in Appendix I to the IT Rules does not mention the size of the gas cylinders nor does it say that gas cylinders should be only for cooking purpose or for any other particular purpose. Hence all gas cylinders are entitled to depreciation @ 100 per cent. If we interpret the expression ‘gas cylinders’ to mean ‘cooking gas cylinder’, we will be really adding words to the statute which is not permissible. The chassis on which the cylinders are carried does not belong to the petitioner. Hence it cannot be said that the cylinders are part of the truck. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal Bangalore Bench in South Eastern Roadways Ltd. vs. ITO (1992) 43 TTJ (Bang) 278 : (1992) 40 ITD 349 (Bang) and we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. The same view was also taken by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Vadilal Gases & Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 164. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunals.
8. Hence, there is no force in these appeals and they are dismissed.
[Citation : 296 ITR 72]
