Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Rama Agricultural Poultry Farm - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
direct taxation - depreciation - sections 32, 260a and 263 of income tax act, 1961 - assessee doing business in hatchery - assessing officer while making assessment allowed depreciation at 100% on cages - such allowance of depreciation was revised by commissioner of income-tax on ground that it is prejudicial to interests of revenue - appeal preferred - tribunal allowed 100% depreciation on ground that series of cages collectively constitute 'plant' - such finding of tribunal is on question of fact - appeal deserves to be dismissed as not involving any question of law. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. s.r. nayak, j. 1. this appeal filed under section 260a of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short, 'the act'), is directed against the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal, hyderabad bench 'b' (for short, 'the tribunal'), dated october 22, 1999, in i. t. a. no. 998/h of 1994. 2. the respondent-assessee is a partnership firm doing business in hatchery. the assessee-firm filed a return of income admitting for the assessment year 1989-90 a taxable income of rs. 26,540 and agricultural income of rs. 5,93,478. the assessment was computed on a total income of rs. 1,45,540. the assessing officer while making the assessment allowed depreciation at 100 per cent. on cages worth rs. 3,16,453. 3. the commissioner of income-tax revised that order on the ground that the assessment made by the assessing officer allowing 100 per cent. depreciation on cages is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, by virtue of the power conferred under section 263 of the act. the assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal. the learned tribunal on appreciation of the judgment of this court in cit v. margadarsi chit fund (p.) ltd. : [1997]227itr646(ap) , in which it was held that bottles would constitute plant and, therefore, 100 per cent. depreciation could be allowed, allowed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. the finding recorded by the learned tribunal is essentially on a question of fact. the tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. although it is the stand of the revenue throughout that only a series of cages collectively constitute the 'plant', no evidence is placed before the tribunal or before this court to support the plea. 4. on the other hand, the ratio decidendi of the judgment in margadarsi chit fund (p.) ltd.'s case : [1997]227itr646(ap) , would squarely support the finding recorded by the learned tribunal. this appeal does not involve any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 5. the appeal is accordingly dismissed. no costs.