1. These two appeals are filed by the CIT, Thiruvananthapuram, against a common order of the Tribunal, Cochin. Bench, in ITA No. 756/Coch/1995, ITA Nos. 446/Coch/l998 and 447/Coch/1998. ITA No. 756/1995 before the Tribunal was filed by the respondent-assessee in respect of the asst. yr. 1992-93 and ITA Nos. 446 & 447 of 1998 were filed by the Department in respect of the asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96. These two appeals are filed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 756/1995 and 447/1998.
2. Sri. P.K.R. Menon, learned senior Central Government standing counsel for the Revenue, submits that one more appeal, ITA No. 82 of 2000 against the order in ITA No. 446/Coch/1998 was also filed which is pending. The senior counsel submits that the Tribunal has decided the appeals in favour of the assessee relying on a decision of the Full Bench in CIT v. Hotel Luciya (1998) 231 ITR 492 (Ker)(FB) but the Supreme Court has reversed the said judgment in a batch of appeals in CIT v. Anand Theatres (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC). The senior counsel on the basis of the aforesaid decision submits that the orders of the Tribunal have to be set aside and the appeals have to be allowed.
3. Though notice was served on the respondent-assessee there is no appearance for the respondent. Since the senior standing counsel submitted that the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision, we have perused the orders of the Tribunal and the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Theatres’ case mentioned supra. We find that the Tribunal, for deciding the matter in favour of, the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Hotel Luciya’s case mentioned supra. We also find from the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Theatres’ case mentioned supra that the Supreme Court has specifically referred to the decision in Hotel Luciya’s case in p. 200 of the said report and the appeal against the same is also stated as being disposed of along with Anand Theatres’ case by the said judgment. The Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Hotel Luciya’s case and decided, the matter in favour of the Revenue by holding that building which is used as a hotel or theatre cannot be given depreciation as plant.
4. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court the question on which notice has been issued, viz; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Theatres’ case (supra) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the pond in the case of the assessee is to be treated as plant and is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to plant and machinery?” answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, Consequently the orders of the Tribunal in ITA No. 756/Coch/1995 and ITA No. 447/Coch/1998 are set aside and the orders of the AO are restored. The order of the first appellate authority on this point also goes.
These appeals are allowed as above.