High Court Of Rajasthan
CIT vs. Agarwal Transformers (P) Ltd.
Sections Appendix I, Part I, item 10A(xiii)
Asst. Year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1987-88
N.N. Mathur & D.N. Joshi, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 14 of 1999
22nd February, 2002
Counsel Appeared
Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Petitioner : Anjay Kothari, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
N.N. MATHUR, J. :
The Tribunal, Jaipur, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act has sought opinion of this Court on the following question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that generator set falls within the category defined in cl. (xiii) of item 10A of Appendix-I of the IT Rules, 1962, and as such is eligible for depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent ?”
2. The reference application pertains to the asst. yrs. 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1987-88. The respondent-assessee is a company carrying on the business of re-rolling of stainless steel Pattas through hot and cold process. The assessee claimed depreciation on generator set at the rate of 30 per cent on the basis of Item 10A in the depreciation schedule in Appendix-I. In the opinion of the AO the generator set is not run on wind energy as such it is not covered by item at 10A and as such the higher depreciation was not permissible on that count. The AO however, allowed the depreciation at the normal rate of 15 per cent on the generator set. The CIT(A) confirmed the finding of the AO. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the generator being a renewable energy device, the depreciation of 30 per cent was allowable. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it will be convenient to extract the relevant entry at Item No. (xiii) of r. 10A of Appendix-I appended to IT Rules, which reads as follows : “Any special devices including electric generators and pumps running on wind energy.”
3. According to the rules of construction, where two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together noscitur a sociis, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from each other, the meaning of the more general being restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general. Thus, in our view the word “electric generator” must be construed as ejusdem generis. The electric generator by itself generate electricity and, therefore, do not fall within the renewable energy devices. It isdifferent from pumps run on wind energy, which falls within the renewable energy devices. Thus, it is erroneous to say that the condition “run on wind energy” is also attached to electric generators. Even grammatically neither, nor the word ‘both’ is used after the word ‘pumps’ in the relevant entry and this also clarifies that the condition “running on” wind “energy” is only attached to the word ‘pumps’ and not to the electric generators. A further reading of the entry shows that it is inclusive, it refers to two different items namely, electric generators and secondly the pumps running on wind energy. Thus, in our view the electric generator clearly falls under the renewable energy devices and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent on the basis of Item (10A), cl. (xiii), of Appendix-I of the IT Rules, 1962.
4. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
[Citation : 258 ITR 251]
