JUDGMENT
Y.R. Meena, J.
1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question set out at page 2 of the paper book :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow investment allowance on trailers ?”
2. The assessee-company derived income by sale of tea grown and manufactured by it during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer found on scrutiny of the records and books of account produced before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has claimed investment allowance on the plant and machinery employed by the assessee, which includes leaf carrying basket trailers. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the investment allowance on the leaf-carrying basket trailers on the ground that it does not form part of the machinery and plant. As it does not contribute directly to the manufacturing process of tea, therefore, it cannot be taken as machinery categorised in Appendix 1 to the Income-tax Rules provided for the rates of depreciation.
3. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also upheld the view taken by the Income-tax Officer. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that the trailers employed for carriage of leaves form part of machinery used in the integrated business of manufacture and sale of tea. Therefore, the investment allowance on the trailers should not be disallowed. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that this court has taken the view that jeeps and motor cycles are not machinery or plant. Therefore, not entitled for investment allowance.
4. Learned counsel for the assessee, Dr. Pal, submits that the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. General Fibre Dealers (P.) Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 622 is distinguishable. As in the case of General Fibre Dealers (P.) Ltd. , the point was that jeeps and motor cycles were used inside the tea gardens and as well as outside the tea gardens as vehicles. Therefore, it cannot be treated as part of plant and machinery. But in the case in hand the trailers are used only within the tea estate garden. They are never used as vehicles on the road from point to point. Therefore, they form part of the plant and machinery and are entitled for investment allowance.
5. The assessee has claimed from the very beginning that these leaves carrying basket trailers are used only for transporting the green leaves to the factories within the tea garden. They never used for any other purpose on the public roads for transportation of any material. That fact has not been disputed by the Revenue authorities. When these leaves carrying basket trailers are used only for transporting the green tea leaves to the factory which is situated within the tea garden and are never used for any transportation purpose on the public roads, in our view such type of tools may be treated as part of the plant and machinery for the purpose of manufacturing of tea.
6. In view of this undisputed fact in our view the Tribunal was justified in allowing the investment allowance on trailers.
7. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.