Chhibber (A.M.) - (1.) THE only grievance projected in this appeal by the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the action of the assessing officer of not allowing a claim of deduction of Rs. 16,00,932 under section 32AB of the Safe Deposit Lockers installed in its strong room.
(2.) The assessee is a Scheduled Bank and is assessed as Public Limited company. During the year under appeal, the assessee claimed deduction under section 32AB of Rs. 16,00,932 in respect of Safe Deposit Lockers. The assessing officer did not allow the same on the ground that Safe Deposit Lockers were installed in the office premises of the assessee within the meaning of section 32AB(4)(a). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of the assessing officer.
(3.) SHRI M.P. Machawe, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Safe Deposit Lockers have not been installed in the office premises where administrative work is carried out, but in a isolated place in separate strong room. The room has grilled doors, and entry is allowed only to the customers and the bank managers who enter for operating key only. Separate register is kept wherein customers entry is made and signed. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the guidelines issued by National Institute of Bank Management indicating that the lockers are to be located in segregated strong room where no administrative work is done. He further drew our attention to the booklet styled "Design and Construction of Safe Deposit Vaults and Some Useful tips" by Godrej to prove his point that Safe Deposit Lockers are to be installed in a segregated place. He therefore submitted that the assessee is entitled to development rebate under section 32AB as the Safe Deposit Lockers were installed in the business premises. In support of his contention, he relied upon the two judgments of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Syndicate Bank v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 198 and Syndicate Bank v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 561.;