JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of five appeals, viz., IT Appeal Nos. 5, 36 to 38 of 1999 and 51 of 2000. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in IT Appeal No. 51 of 2000. These may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE assessee is a contractor. For the asst. year 1991 92, the assessee declared an income of Rs. 9,29,800. Vide order dt. 18th Sept., 1992 the AO applied a net profit rate of 12.5 per cent 'on the total contract receipts' of Rs. 2,97,04,200 and fixed the taxable income at Rs. 33,94,810. The assessee filed an appeal. The CIT(A) vide order dt. 17th Nov., 1992, confirmed the net rate of profit at 12.5 per cent. However, a deduction of Rs. 8,13,344 was allowed on account of depreciation. Still further, the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 5,15,334 on account of interest was also allowed. The assessee and the Revenue filed separate appeals. Both the appeals were decided, vide, order dt. 29th Sept., 1999. The Tribunal held that 'net profit rate of 10 per cent will be reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to the net profit of 5.6 per cent applied by the learned CIT(A)'. It was further held that the 'net profit rate has taken into account the claim of depreciation'. Hence, this appeal under S. 260A by the assessee. In the memorandum of appeal, five questions have been raised. However, at the hearing, the counsel pressed the following two questions: "1. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on correct interpretation of the CBDT, Circular dt. 31st Aug., 1965, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the assessee the depreciation of Rs. 8,13,344 and the claim of interest amounting to Rs. 5,15,334? 2. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal disallowing depreciation and interest being a statutory allowance and the other having been allowed in the past, is legally sustainable?"
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants contended that in view of the Circular dt. 31st Aug., 1965, the claim for depreciation and interest had been wrongly disallowed. The claim was controverted by Mr. R.P. Sawhney, counsel for the Revenue.;