- (1.) THE following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 22nd April, 1985 in respect of asst. yr. 1980-81 under s. 256(1) of the Act : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the massive reinforced concrete structure especially designed to take up loads, constituted "plant" within the meaning of s. 43(3) of IT Act, 1961 ?"
(2.) THE controversy in question is covered by the decision given by this Court in the case of assessee in respect of asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 reported as CIT vs. R.G. Ispat Ltd. (1995) 124 CTR (Raj) 19 : (1994) 210 ITR 1018 (Raj). It was observed in that case as under : "THE Tribunal has observed that the blue print of the structure was produced before them and they were satisfied that structure has been raised to provide support to the gigantic cranes. On the basis of this blue print, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the structures were raised to make the plant operative which could not have functioned in its absence. It was further observed that it is not a mere structure for location of the plant but the structure which makes the plant operative and workable. THEre may be a structure which falls within the category of building and plant. Whether the structure is a building or a plant has to be examined on the basis of the functional test. THE use of the structure makes the distinction between plant or building in which it could be categorised. In the present case, the revised return was submitted in the proceedings initiated on the basis of the directions issued under s. 263 of the IT Act. THE claim of the assessee was rejected by the ITO and the said revised return was not accepted. THE proper course for the CIT would have been to first determine as to whether the revised return was liable to be entertained or to be ignored. No such decision has been taken by the CIT and he has proceeded on the basis of the nature of the structure and held that it is plant. THE only question which has been raised before us is with regard to the justification in holding the structure as plant within the meaning of s. 43(3) of the IT Act and the Tribunal has mentioned that the structure was raised to make the plant operative which could not have functioned in its absence. THErefore, we are of the view that the portions of the structure which were required to make the cranes operative and in the absence of which it was not possible to operate the cranes and the construction of such structure was specially designed for that purpose, the structure would fall within the definition of "plant". THE extra structure which is in addition to such structure could not be considered as "plant"." In view of the opinion already given by this Court, we are of the view that the massive reinforced concrete structure specially designed to take up loads constitutes "plant" within the meaning of s. 43(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.;