M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) CHANDIGARH Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No. 374/Chd/1978 -79 : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that harvesting
(2.) ACCORDING to the facts as disclosed in the statement of the case the AO has passed an assessment order granting depreciation on harvesting machine at the rate of 30 per cent. Thereafter, a statutory notice under s. 154 of IT Act, issue is debatable and cannot be reopened by invoking the provisions of s. 154. The assessee placed reliance on the already been set at rest. However, the AO proceeded to rectify his mistake and allowed 10 per cent of depreciation instead of 30 per cent by adding a sum of Rs. 39,764 (Rs. Thirty nine thousand seven hundred sixty four only). The order of the AO was upheld by the AAC. When the assessee approached the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in ITA No. 374/Chd/1978 -79 in respect of the asst. yr. 1975 -76, the Tribunal posed the question as to whether harvesting combine was entitled to 30 per cent depreciation in respect of the asst. yr. 1975 -76 or whether depreciation at the rate of 30 per of Appendix I to the IT Rules, 1962. The Tribunal placed reliance on its earlier order passed in Punjab Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 27/Chd.1978 -79 and 97/Chd/1979; Asst. yr. 1971 -72), it placed reliance on the following portion of its earlier order which reads as under : "We however, have not been able to appreciate the similarity as sought to be drawn by the learned revenue's representative. A human body certainly cannot become a motor vehicle or a motor tractor but the question before us is rather different and which is whether a harvesting combine should be entitled to depreciation @ 30 per cent or not. We are not inclined to accept the Revenue's case that harvesting combine cannot be said to be covered by or anywhere near item (9) of part D of sub -head (III) of part I of Appendix I to the IT Rules, 1962. Item (9) provides 30 per cent depreciation on motor buses, motor lorries, motor taxies, motor tractors (NESA). Harvesting combine is of no use if attachment for harvesting and thrashing of wheat and rice are not attached with it and therefore, its work is by and 1978 amending the entry at item (9) referred to above, to the following effect : "In part I of Appendix I to the IT Rules, 1962 in the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible in the heading III Machinery and plant (not being a ship), in sub -heading (ii) in group D for item (9) the following items shall be motor taxies (NESA) (9A) Motor tractor. Harvesting combines (NESA). There could be an argument from the Revenue be allowed depreciation @ 30 per cent But such argument would suffer from fallacy and misconception of the back ground of amendment of entry at item (9) supra. It does not involve much mental exercise to understand that when the IT Rules, 1962 were framed the use of harvesting combine was not prevalent in Indian (India) and therefore, it appears and seems reasonable that as soon as it was brought to the notice of the Rule -making authorities that some AOs were restricting depreciation on harvesting combines to 10 per cent necessary amendment was taken at hand and harvesting combine inserted in item (9) supra. Therefore, to our mind, terming harvesting combine as general machinery entitled to combine could never be termed something less than a motor tractor or a motor vehicle. 8. One much (must) bear in mind that utility of harvesting combine is similar to a motor tractor and being entirely meant for agricultural land operations its life -supra would normally be shorter than a motor tractor, and, in any case, not longer than that. Therefore, harvesting combine would not be said to be outside the category of motor vehicle and 9. We are, therefore, of the considered view that harvesting combines were entitled to 30 per cent depreciation even assessment is vacated."
(3.) ON the basis of the aforementioned observation made in the order, the Tribunal concluded that the harvesting no justification for the AO to withdraw the depreciation of Rs. 39,764 (Rs. Thirty nine thousand seven hundred sixty four only) by invoking s. 154 of the Act and upholding of the same by the AAC. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and find that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is not disputed that earlier order of the Tribunal in Punjab Agro Industries Corporation's case (supra), as was relied upon to take a view in favour of the assessee was accepted by the Department. The addition of combine with the tractor would not change the nature of the vehicle and it will continue to be the vehicle as has rightly been made by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the amount involved is very meagre. Therefore, the question is answered against the Revenue upholding the order of the Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed.;