JUDGMENT
S.K. Keshote, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) made reference of the following question for our consideration.
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the view taken by the CIT(A) that the assessee’s building of massive reinforced concrete structure is an integral part of the plant and machinery and consequently in directing the ITO to allow investment allowance and depreciation thereon ?”
3. The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. The assessee claimed before the AO that the building wherein the plant and machinery is housed should be treated as a plant and, depreciation and investment allowance should be allowed thereon. This claim made by the assessee was disallowed by the AO. The assessee had taken the matter in the appeal before the CIT(A), who set aside the order of the AO and remitted the matter to him to decide it on the basis of the principles laid down in the order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78. In the fresh order again the ITO disallowed this claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal holding that the building of the assessee is a plant and he is entitled for the appreciation (sic-depreciation) and investment allowance. The learned Tribunal followed its earlier order and confirmed the view taken by the CIT(A).
4. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres (2000) 224 ITR 192 (SC) Shri Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is wholly erroneous.
5. Shri Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC). In CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation’s case (supra) their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the finding of Tribunal to the effect that generating station building had been constructed to be an integral part of its power generation system building constituted ‘plant’ and distinguished the decision in case of CIT v. Anand Theatre (supra).
6. Where a particular structure is merely helpful for carrying on the activities of the assessee it may not be a plant but if it is an integral part of the plant and machinery or portion of that building is an integral part of the plant and machinery that should be considered in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (supra).
7. The issue involved in this case needs to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (supra).
8. We restore the matter back to the Tribunal with the direction to give this required finding for the purpose of investment allowance and depreciation in the case of this assesses to especially examine whether the entire building or part of building is eligible for investment allowance and depreciation in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (supra).
9. It is expected from the Tribunal to consider and take fresh decision in the matter within three months from the date of communication of this order.
10. The reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.