COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI VS HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX LTD., TAXILA, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI
2001 P T D 1354
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE; RAWALPINDI
versus
Messrs HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX LTD. TAXILA, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI
C.T.R. No.359 of 1991, decided on 20/12/2000.
Income-tax-
----Depreciation---"Plant"---Connotation---Word "plant" had much wider meaning when used in the context of factory--- "Plant" in its factual meaning included not only the main structure but also the ancillary ones which were in use as integral part of the factory---Roads and railway sidings in the factory premises of the assessee which was a public limited company, owned and financed by Government of Pakistan .and on the upkeep of which the assessee spent money out of its income, were a necessary part of the factory as without these facilities viz., roads and railway sidings it was not possible` for the assessee factory to transport the capital goods manufactured to and from its premises---Railway sidings and roads in the factory premises to transport capital goods manufactured to and from its premises being covered by the term "plant" was entitled to depreciation.
(1971) 82 ITR 376 and Income-tax Law by Palkiwala, 7th Edn., Vol. 1, pp. 375-376 ref.
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.
Aurangzeb Mirza for Respondent.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---At the instance of the C.I.T. Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi, following question of law has been framed by the Tribunal for our consideration and reply:---
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that railway sidings and the term 'Plant' and hence entitled to depreciation:
2. The assessee-respondent is a public limited company owned and financed by the Government of Pakistan. It has within its premises railway sidings and some roads on the up-keep of which the assessee spends money out of its income. On the expenditure so incurred depreciation was claimed which was not allowed by the Assessing Officer. The learned first appellate authority maintained the disallowance but the Tribunal on further appeal concluded that sidings and roads were covered by the term "plant" and therefore, entitled to depreciation allowance.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are inclined to return an affirmative answer. The learned Tribunal while finding for the assessee relied upon a reported judgment of the Supreme Court of India cited as (1971) 82 ITR 376. Surprisingly while making a statement of the case and referring the above question the Tribunal itself attempted to distinguish the case to express an opinion against their opinion recorded in favour of the assessee while deciding the appeal. That certainly appears unwarranted,
4. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal mostly relied upon the opinion expressed by Messrs Palkiwala's 7th Edition Volume-I pages 375-376 which reads as under:---
"The word 'Plant' must be given a wide meaning. It is defined by section 43(3) as including ships, vehicles, books scientific apparatus and surgical equipment. It would not include, for the purposes of this Act, animals of the human body. Plant in its originary sense includes whatever apparatus is used by a business for carry on his business not his stock-in-trade which he buys or marks for sale, but all goods and chattles, fixed or movable which he keeps for employment in his business with some degree of durability. Thus, plaint has been held to include knives and lasts of which the average life was three years movable partitions, sanitary and pipelines fittings (removable or irremovable) tube-wells, electric fittings and installations, ceiling and pedestal fans, office appliances, railway sidings, fencing around a refinery, air-conditioning equipment, the freezing chamber in which such equipment is located safe deposit vaults, a dry-dock for ship-building and repairing and swimming and paddling pools. Even some buildings and structures, e.g. dockside silos, may qualify to be treated as plant. After exhaustively reviewing the case-law on the topic, the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Election Engineering Co. Ltd. held that drawings and patterns which constitute know-how and are fundamental to the assessee's manufacturing business are 'Plant'.
5. Learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to state any authoritative pronouncement against the view adopted by the Tribunal that word 'plant' had much wider meaning when used in the context of factory. Also that in its factual meaning it includes not only the main structure but also the ancillary ones which are in use as integral part of the factory. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by them that roads and railways sidings in question were a necessary part of the factory is not open to exception. Particularly when the Revenue failed to dislodge the claim of the assessee that without these facilities viz. roads and railway sidings it was not possible to transport the capital goods manufactured to and from its premises.
'The question answered in the affirmative.
M.B.A./C-48/LQuestion answered,