JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE assessee is a civil contractor. He filed his return for the asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee declared his income as Rs. 4,53,750. The AO passed an order dt. 7th Jan., 1994, under s.143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, and held that the assessee's income was Rs. 5,71,638. While doing so, the AO partially disallowed the assessee's claim with regard to allowance of depreciation of wooden shuttering of Rs. 1,37,640. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal. The CIT(A) vide her order dt. 18th Aug., 1994, held that the "disallowance of Rs. 1,03, 230", claimed by the assessee on account of depreciation, was wrong.
(2.) THE Revenue challenged the order of the appellate authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that in the circumstances of the case, the claim, as made by the assessee, was legally tenable. It followed its decision in the case of ITO vs. S.A. Builders (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 493/Chandi/87. Hence this appeal under S. 260A of the 1961 Act. Mr. R.P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had erred in accepting the claim of the assessee for the grant of 100 per cent depreciation. Thus, the counsel submits that the claim of the Revenue should be accepted.
(3.) THE claim for depreciation has to be examined on the basis of the evidence in the case. Various factors, like the year in which the material was purchased; the depreciated value of the material and also the extent of its use; have to be taken into consideration. On consideration of the matter, two authorities have taken a possible view. The findings are based on consideration of the material which was placed before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. In this situation, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. It may also be noticed that the Tribunal has followed its decision in the case of S.A. Builders (supra). It has not been shown that the Revenue had challenged that order. In fact, Mr. Sawhney submits that no appeal was filed in that case. In view of these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.;