( 1 ) THE question submitted by the Revenue seeking to call for a reference from the Tribunal is whether the Tribunal has been right to hold the deduction allowable under section 32 of the Income-tax Act to the assessee on the purchase of the bottles which it leased out as a business. The submission of Mr. S. R. Ashok, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that even if for the purpose of the business of the respondent the bottles are treated as "plant" within the meaning of section 32 (1), yet the deduction is allowable only when the purchase is en bloc and cannot be allowed in respect of single bottles which would obviously be priced less than Rs. 5,000. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of this court in CIT v. Sri Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. [1989] 175 ITR 154, to hold bottles as "plant" and 100 per cent. depreciation could be available.

( 2 ) THE impugned assessment is of the year 1985-86. Section 32 (1) is in the following terms :"32. Depreciation.- (1) In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of the business or profession, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of section 34, be allowed -"

( 3 ) THE first proviso to the sub-section which was amended by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from 1/04/1984, and was applicable to the assessment in question was as follows : (ii) in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed : Provided that where the actual cost of any machinery or plant does not exceed five thousand rupees, the actual cost thereof shall be allowed as a deduction in respect of the previous year in which such machinery or plant is first put to use by the assessee for the purposes of his business or profession;

( 4 ) IN Krishna Bottlers case [1989] 175 ITR 154 (AP), the court held, while deciding that the bottles containing soft drink cannot be stock-in-trade, as follows (page 170) :"what is the function these bottles and shells perform in the assessee s trade ? Are they essentially tools in the assessee s business ? In our opinion, yes. The bottles are essential tools of the trade, for it is through them that the soft drink is passed on from the assessee to the customer. Without these bottles, the soft drink cannot be effectively transported. . . . . The bottles and shells also satisfy the durability test for it is nobody s case that their life is too transitory or negligible to warrant an inference that they have no function to play in the assessee s trade. They are therefore plant for the purposes of the Act. "

( 5 ) ADOPTING the logic, it can be well said that since it is the business of the respondent to purchase the bottles for the purpose of leasing them out as a business, the bottles do constitute "plant" for the purpose of his business or profession. Once such a ground applies and indeed the fact is conceded by Mr. S. R. Ashok, in view of the decision in Krishna Bottlers case [1989] 175 ITR 154 (AP), the further question raised by learned counsel does not arise. There is no distinction that the purchase on which the depreciation would be allowed must be bulk purchase of a large number and that it would be disallowed if the purchase is of single items. There is no evidence that the bottles in respect of which depreciation was claimed were not the subject of bulk purchase. Even apart from it, a bulk purchase is merely individualised purchase made collectively and we do not find any distinction in the provisions of section 32 (1) or the proviso, distinction possible to be drawn in the manner suggested. The only test is whether the article in respect of which depreciation is claimed is "plant" for the purpose of the business or profession. Individual items of purchase would also be "plant", if it is integrally involved in the carrying out of the profession or business and depreciation could be claimed in respect of that. In that view of the mat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document