- (1.) THE following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') arising out of order passed in ITA No. 977 of 1985 on 12th "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation @ 20 per cent on electric installations in the fully fashioned unit ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing extra shift allowance on oil tanks in Vanaspati units and storage tank and cooling tower in refinery units ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper interpretation of law/rules in this behalf, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation @ 20 per cent on generator and electric transformers ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the refinery units at Ludhiana and Madras as 'industrial undertakings' for the purposes of investment allowance and deduction under s. 80J with respect thereto ? 5. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of law/rules, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing investment allowance on electric installations such as humidifiers in wool combers unit ? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing assessee's claim for Rs. 6,40,621 on account of 'leave with wages' -
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) AS regards, question No. 1 is concerned, a finding of fact has been recorded that the electric installations in the fully fashioned unit are integral part of the machinery and cannot be separated from it. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to controvert or dispute the findings of fact which are recorded by the Tribunal. In view of facts found by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders whereby depreciation has been allowed to the assessee treating the electric installations in the fully fashioned unit as part of the machinery. As far as second question is concerned, the following findings have been recorded by the Tribunal while dealing with the issue : "10. After hearing both the parties we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A). All the three items which are oil tanks in Vanaspati unit and storage tank and cooling tower in refinery unit cannot be regarded anything than part of plant. In all fairness, the learned senior Departmental Representative could not point out any specific head in the Appendix to IT Rules providing different rate of depreciation or any restrictions to extra shift allowance on this part of the machinery. Once it is established that these are part and parcel of the machinery and there is no specific bar under the IT Rules for allowance of extra shift allowance, not to be negated and was rightly admitted by CIT(A)." A perusal of the above shows that even the senior Departmental Representative who, appeared before the Tribunal did not dispute that there is any restriction on the grant of extra shift allowance on oil tanks in Vanaspati units, storage tank, cooling tower in refinery units. Moreover, the same have also been treated to be integral part of plant. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to show anything to draw an inference that the above findings are incorrect. In fact no question has been claimed as perversity of the findings. ;