Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv Nagpur v. M/S Gst Infrastructure Nagpur

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2013 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax IV Nagpur VERSUS M/s GST Infrastructure Nagpur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anand Parchure counsel for the appellant.Shri Dewani counsel for the respondent. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIKAND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.DATE:OCTOBER 11, 2013. By this appeal the appellant-Revenue challenges the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Nagpur dated 6[th] February 2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue and up holding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that concrete mixers fitted with the truck operated by the assessee were to be treated as one unit and were entitled to 30% depreciation. It is submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal were not justified in holding so, as the truck and the concrete mixers fitted on the same could not have been treated as one unit. It is submitted that the trucks are purchased from Ashok Leyland and Tata where as the concrete mixers are purchased from some other 2 companies. According to the learned counsel the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessee was entitled to 30% depreciation on the trucks and only 15% depreciation on the mixers and pumps affixed on the truck. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the order of the Commissioner as also the Tribunal, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the orders. Both the authorities have, on a proper appreciation of the material on record found that the assessee Company was engaged in transportation of ready mix concrete from the plants located at New Delhi and Nagpur and concrete mixers were fitted with the truck and that they could not have been separated from the truck. It was observed by the authorities that without the concrete mixers there was no use of the truck for the purpose of transportation as required, as the concrete mixer is a special attachment that is attached with the truck permanently. The authorities found that the life of concrete mixers is only 4 to 5 years. While recording the aforesaid finding that the truck with the concrete mixers were to be considered as one unit, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Gujco Carriers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2002)256 ITR 50 (Gujrat). On reading of the said judgment it appears that in similar set of facts it was observed by the Gujrat High Court that a crane mounted on a truck is a truck crane and constitutes a single unit that is adapted for use upon road for special services. In the instant case also, for the special services of transportation of ready mix concrete from New Delhi and Nagpur, the concrete mixers were permanently fitted to the truck and in such set of facts, the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal held that the trucks carrying the concrete mixers were entitled to 30% depreciation. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE