Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dy. Commr. Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs N.K. Industries Ltd

Supreme Court22 April 2008S.H. Kapadia · B. Sudershan Reddy

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the Tribunal, after examining witnesses and material on record, has concluded on facts that assets were not idle during the relevant period, an appellate court need not decide the larger question of law regarding whether "use" in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 means actual use, but may dispose of the appeal on the factual finding that the assets were in fact used for the purposes of the business.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 2976 of 2008
PETITIONER:Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad
RESPONDENT:N.K. Industries Ltd
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/04/2008
BENCH:S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENTO R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2976 OF 2008(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6024/2007)
Leave granted.

This Civil Appeal is filed by the Department against the judgment and Order dated 17th October, 2005 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeals Nos.240/2003 and 261/2003.

We are concerned with the block period 1-4-1988 to 24-2-1999. The main contention advanced on behalf of the Department is that for allowance of deduction for depreciation, the asset must not only be owned by the assessee but it must also be used for the purposes of business or profession of the assessee. It is the case of the Department that the word "used" in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 refers to actual use of the asset. It is the case of the Department that having regard to the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, particularly, after the introduction of the concept of "block of assets", actual use is the only requirement apart from ownership for allowance of depreciation under Section 32. It is the case of the Department that important question of law arose for determination before the High Court. That, the High Court has failed to examine the said question and that it had erred in dismissing the Tax Appeals only on the ground that no substantial question of law had arisen.

In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the statements of certain witnesses and after analysing the material on record, it has come to the conclusion on facts that there is nothing to show that the machinery, namely, expellers remained idle for the entire block period 1-4-1988 to 24-2-1999. Having examined the record ourselves, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal on the facts of the present case. Hence, it is not necessary for us to go into the larger question of law regarding the connotation of the word "used" appearing in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the afore-stated reasons, Civil Appeal filed by the Department stands dismissed. Question of law is kept open.

No order as to costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free