XI-HG—7S sn^i'^i^w 'tWI 3ilt?I sn*]i* 1«. ^z ^[i4k^, Qtii'y'iis, i's<<?tiyy<, ..''?ar.,.^ft£,,,A^.J-l.. 2006 TRTIW ^tftB 3iI^T WfeqR •WRTf'0 fe%t Tf%$R ^ SffSst) Si!t?[ APPELLANT: Conrmissioner Bilaspur of Incoine Tax. -l/ersiis- RESPONDENTS: Appellate Tribuiial, ih Kum.ar Miirarka, Murarka Petrol Pump, P.H. Road, Korba Stai S. Rajeshwara Rao, cijilinsel tbr the appeliant. Leanied coiuisel for ti^e appellajit does not press I.A, No.527/ 2007. !t is accordingly (j The appellau.t revenue ha| tisnussed as not picssed. preferred fhis appeal under Sectioa 260-A of f&e Income Tax Act, jl961 (for short 'fhe Act') against. tfae iinpugiied order of fhe Inconie jTax AppeUate Tribuaal (for short 'the Tribunal') on the following subst^iitial questions oflaw;- • Whether on (he facts aadj in the circumstaaces of the case, the leam.ed Inconie Tax Appl ate Tribiinal were right m. holding depi¥.ciation at 40% on i iob? •& tliat assessee is a contifactor was entitted to higher ra.te of ;h.e Tippei-s used by it in its contract i,l+ -HC—7S sn^iwiyiw TOian^TWTSW 'S^t •^WM-tl, sSTSWfe, T^TRTy ^^..CI'ft.K....GBo<;.....?.4. •3i^!1?5R7(1iqfip%a) !f \ t, 1,2^9 TOnw ffl?;i swSf TWtfefl"-; Vi!^ -q •fyg;Ti^@T binduig under Section .* Whefher fhe circular i4 question issued by fhe C.I i9 (1) offhe Incoiae Tax Act on and cit-ciunstances of th4 case? T. is facts \-t Proio. perusal of fhe rec^nl, it appears that CIT(A) attowed fhe appeal of fhe assessee and hel^ that from perusal of the tender notice issued by fhe SECL and copy 2001 awarded to fhe assessee, bf contract order dated 26til Noveinber It is evident tbat contract was in regard to transportation of coal froiu Ipipka to Gevra Road Railway siding. In order to execute this contract Ibr traiisportatiQn ofcoal from. Dipka to destTiiatioD. was fhe term. of fjie contract. Thus, assessee used Ms tippers ia transportiiig goods tippers were not put at fhe No.609 dated 29th July, 1991. •!l2009) 180 Taxmaii 348 (Bom. and fhe afoissaid circulars d to the destiaation. However, fhe.se disposal of the conteactee, therefore, assessee's clauii for bigher rat^ of depreciation 011 tippers faUs withia the purview of circular No.65^ dated 14th June, 1993 and circular Co.nftrming the findiug i^corded by fhe 1 CIT, the appeai preferred by t|ie Revenue has been disinissed by ftie Tribiinal byimpugned order. la Dealiag iu identical sit4&tion, fhe Boinbay High Court ia tlie matter of Commissioner of Iriconae-tax Versus S.C. Thahiu. & Bros. |), after considering Section 32 oftlie Act df the Board held that tiigher rate of depreciation is also adinissible jwhen m.oto.r lorry is used bv assessee m. :a his ownbusiness Qftraiisport'a iion of goods on hire. tl -He—78 ^ ^=r ^TraT?!q, •®ttry<!d, ...i..SX^.....^K-^'^.....^i...:. G ^ o llilili 1 m an^i^il'^fe 'gs'nsiitffwqw b Ban/e ^' s(- ^CTtwa{sa3^?r j_ <-^— sinfepf^w^S tf re^ Tfe?R j; *' ^afflmscts We are.in respectful a^reeiaent wifii the view talcen by t Hon'ble Bombay High Court iaSthe case ofS.C. Thateui & Bros. (Sup and accoraingly, coiisidering t^s finding of fact record.ed by the CIT ao.d fheTribunaI, we are offh^ opiiuon th.at th.ey werc rigfat m. holdi fhat the assessee was entitled for higlier rate of depreciatson @ 40% the tippers used by it. " On fhe basis of a&resaiit discussion., we are. of fbe opioion th the'fiii.diag offact recorded by the same caanot be iaterfered (ihe forums below is & finding of fgct a |with and no substantial question of l arises for adjutlication ofthis ajppeal. There is no substaace ia is accordingly disnussed. Sdf- T^ Dhirendra Mishra Judge ifhis appeal, ttte sam.e deserves to be a SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 4- w'