TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unning a Hotel which also had Restaurants in it. He argued that by no stretch of imagination a Hotel could be said to be an Industrial Undertaking engaged in the manufacturing or production of goods. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the case of the assessee was different from that of the Orient Express Company's case on the basis of which in assessee's own case for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1980-81 the Tribunal had held that assessee was eligible for investment allowance if other conditions laid down in s. 32A are satisfied. He submitted that in the case of Orient Express Co. the question involved was only regarding preparation of food and Air-conditioning Plants but in the case of the assessee the entire Hotel busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure for the asst. yr. 1983-84 and was disallowed on estimate basis for the asst. yr. 1984-85 on the allegation that "no details whatsoever" were filed regarding substantial amount of expenses claimed under the head `Building, Plant Machinery' and others for that year. 6. We have heard detailed arguments and explanations from both the sides in this regard and have also perused the orders of the authorities below. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that the concept of repairs in the case of a Five Star Hotel has to be different from what it would be in the case of an ordinary trader or an ordinary manufacturer. It is for this reason that reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs amounting to Rs. 10,71,324 out of a claim of Rs. 14,05,670 were filed. Similarly, it is alleged that no details of sanitary fittings amounting to Rs. 1,63,936 and furniture fittings amounting to Rs. 2,29,238 were filed. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer's order itself out of a claim of Rs. 26 lakhs (approx.) the details of expenditure amounting to Rs. 14.70 lakhs were not filed and in these circumstances there was no justification for making a disallowance of 20 per cent of the entire expenditure instead of making disallowance out of those expenses the details of which are alleged to have not been filed. After taking these arguments into account, we are of the opinion that it would be reasonable if the facts are properly examined. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depreciation claim at Rs. 4,78,989 could not be allowed. 8. In the appeal filed by the assessee the ld. CIT(A) considered the arguments on behalf of the assessee to the effect that since s. 33 dealt with development rebate, which was replaced by investment allowance under s. 32A w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, s. 33 had become redundant and hence it was no longer necessary to comply with the requirements of Item III(iii) of the Part I of the Appendix 1 of the IT Rules referred to above in so far as it read ".... a hotel where such hotel is for the time being approved by the Central Government for the purposes of s. 33 of the Act". The learned CIT(A) found force with this argument coupled with the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of investment allowance as back as in 1976 yet the conditions prescribed for getting the benefit of extra depreciation allowance for the approved hotels had not been changed, showed that this extra depreciation allowance could not be allowed in the case of the assessee. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the hotel was approved by the Government as back as in 1969 and in any case the Assessing Officer had allowed the extra depreciation allowance for the asst. yr. 1983-84 and hence there was no justification in not allowing that in the year under consideration. In support of his claim that the hotel had been approved, he learned counsel filed a copy of a circular letter dt. 2nd Aug., 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoved. Moreover, s. 33 was not deleted from the statute book and hence it is obvious that the law and rules required these conditions to be fulfilled which were not fulfilled and hence the extra depreciation could not be allowed. We agree with the arguments of the ld. Departmental Representative that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in applying the ratio of decision in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty to the facts and Circumstances of this case. In that particular case the Hon'ble Court was dealing with the question of capital gains on goodwill and had laid down that the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code and that when there is a case in which the computation provisions cannot apply at al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
