This appeal by department and cross-objection by assessee are directed against order of CIT(A)-I, Pune on dated 5-3-1997 for assessment year 1993-94. Both appeal as well as cross-objection are being disposed off by common order for sake of convenience. 2. We now first take up department's appeal. Grounds for assessment year 1993-94 raised by department are as under: "1. On facts and in circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation when assets were not in existence as per findings of Assessing Officer. 2. learned CIT(A) also erred in directing to compute deduction under section 80-I, and in not appreciating fact that assessee-company is not manufacturing concern and issue is covered by decision of Supreme Court in case of N.C. Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412 which is in favour of revenue." 3. facts in brief are that assessee-company is engaged in business of laying of pipeline. assessee belongs to Sheth and Sura group of companies and search was conducted under section 132 in cases of this group on 18-12-1992. During search, assessee declared additional income of Rs. 30 lakhs for assessment year1993-94 as under: W.I.P. Rs. 20,00,000 Plant and Machinery Rs. 7,00,000 Furniture and Fixtures Rs. 3,00,000 Rs. 30,00,0004. return of income for assessment year 1993-94 was filed on 31-12-1993. In assessment order under section 143(3) dated 29-3- 1996, Assessing Officer disallowed assessee's claim for depreciation in respect of value of plant and machinery and furniture and fixture declared u n d e r section 132(4) during search at Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs respectively, in appeal, CIT(A) allowed assessee's claim. order of CIT(A) has been challenged by department through Ground No. 1. 5. Shri M.M. Srivastava, ld. D.R. relied on order of Assessing Officer and contended that CIT(A) had erred in allowing depreciation. He argued saying that assets did not exist and, therefore, assessee's claim for depreciation was not admissible.6. Shri G.N. Joglekar, ld. A.R. of assessee supported order of CIT(A). submissions made by him are summarized below: - that declaration made by assessee clearly stated that sum of Rs. 7 lakhs offered for tax was in form of plant and machinery; - that sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered for tax in form of furniture and fixture; - that above amounts offered for tax represented part value of existing plant and machinery and furniture and fixture; - that it was nowhere stated by assessee that declared amounts represented value of any separate identical items of plant and machinery and furniture and fixture; - that declaration made by assessee was accepted by department; - that value of existing plant and machinery in books of account was increased by Rs. 7 lakhs; - that value of existing furniture and fixture in books of account was increased by Rs. 3 lakhs; - that Assessing Officer erred in allowing assessee's claim for depreciation in respect of additional value of machinery and furniture & fixtures declared during search. 7. We have considered rival submissions and have perused orders o f authorities below, it is seen that during search conducted by department under section 132 in December 1992 assessee declared undisclosed income of Rs. 30 lakhs for assessment year 1993-94 out of which Rs. 7 lakhs was shown under head 'Plant and Machinery' and Rs. 3 lakhs was shown under head 'Furniture and Fixture'. In respect of these sums of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs assessee claimed depreciation which was disallowed by Assessing Officer. However, CIT(A) accepted assessee's claim. We find that two requisites for depreciation allowance under section 32(1) are as under: (i ) that depreciable asset is owned [(with effect from 1-4-1997); wholly or partly] by assessee; (ii) that it is used for purposes of assessee's business or profession (subject to provisions of section 34). 8. During assessment proceedings, assessee was asked by Assessing Officer to furnish necessary details about these assets and reply given by assessee vide its letter dated 27-12-1995 as reproduced by Assessing Officer in his order was as under: "We are unable to furnish inventory in respect of WIP, plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures declared at time of search action under section 132." 9. While making claim for depreciation under section 32 of Act in respect of asset, assessee has to furnish details with relevant evidence about particulars of asset, its date of acquisition and its actual cost. In this case, assessee failed to furnish these details in respect of its claim for depreciation under section 32 of Act. amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs offered by assessee for tax represented its undisclosed income and assessee did not produce any evidence to show that these amounts represented cost of plant and machinery and furniture and fixture respectively qualifying for depreciation under section 32 of Act. Merely because disclosure of undisclosed income of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs were made under head 'Plant and Machinery' and 'Furniture and Fixture' assessee's claim for depreciation under section 32 in respect of these amounts could not be allowed in absence of any evidence to show that requisite conditions of section 32 of Act were fulfilled. We have given careful consideration to facts and circumstances of case and we are of opinion that order of CIT(A) on this issue cannot be sustained. Ground No. 1 raised by department is accordingly allowed. 10. In Ground No. 2 department has challenged order of CIT(A) partly allowing assessee's claim under section 80-I. 11. We have heard rival submissions and have perused orders of authorities below. business of assessee is of laying of pipelines. steel pipes used for this purpose are made from steel plates and process involved includes bending of plates and converting them into pipes and welding them thereafter. CIT(A) was of view that making of steel pipes from steel plates was manufacturing activity eligible for deduction under section 80-I. laying of these pipes was however, not treated by CIT(A) as manufacturing activity. He therefore, restricted assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-I to 70 per cent of total turnover. observations made by CIT(A) in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 are reproduced below: "10. I have considered submissions. I agree that in respect of manufacturing activities like laying pipes in shop or cutting steel plates, bending them and converting them into pipes would constitute manufacturing activities and not construction activities. Thus, site fabrication, plate bending and converting it into pipes will be eligible for deduction under section 80-I. To ascertain matter properly, deduction should be based on proportion of turnover so that in respect of construction activities, appellant will not be eligible for deduction under section 80-I. 11. appellant has given break-up of Chandrapur work, wherein turnover for manufacturing and processing work is shown at Rs. 39.20 lakhs and turnover for construction activities is shown at Rs. 5.69 lakhs. tender is stated to be for design, manufacture, shop and site fabrication, deliver to site, fabrication of various owner supplied materials, laying and commissioning of large diameter piping etc. For construction activities, appellant has shown only civil work and 'Dewater' as extra claim. However, from tender, find that tender includes work of laying and commissioning of large diameter pipeline and in my opinion, since this work is also included in tender, work of design manufacture and fabrication would be about Rs. 30 lakhs on estimate basis. Hence, I direct that manufacturing activities for Chandrapur work be taken at 70 per cent of Rs. 39.20 lakhs and appellant be given deduction under section 80-I accordingly. 12. In respect of Sangli work, appellant has claimed that total manufacturing activities is of Rs. 2.12 crores and civil and other works at Rs. 37.32 lakhs. Since scope of work is similar as above, I direct that 70 per cent of Rs. 2.12 crores be considered as manufacturing activities eligible for deduction under section 80-I. 13. In case of Latur work, appellant has shown Rs. 110.83 lakhs as work of manufacturing. For reasons given above, I direct that 70 per cent of this be considered as work of manufacturing eligible for deduction under section 80-I." 12. principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412 has been impliedly applied by CIT(A) to that part of business activity which constitutes excavation and laying of pipes. CIT(A) has estimated this part of activity to represent 30 per cent of total turnover. ld. D.R. could not give any cogent reasons to controvert these findings of CIT(A). We have given careful consideration to facts and circumstances of case and we are of opinion that order of CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Ground No. 2 is accordingly rejected. 13. We now take up assessee's cross-objection. ground taken by assessee is as under: "The activities considered by learned CIT(A)-I, Pune as construction activity are incidental to main activity of manufacturing and processing and as such under section 80-I deduction may be fully allowed on net profit." 14. We have upheld order of CIT(A) with regard to assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-I in above paragraphs, in circumstances, therefore, we reject assessee's cross-objection. 15. In result, departmental appeal is partly allowed and assessee's cross-objection is dismissed. Per H.L. Karwa, Judicial Member. - I have read carefully proposed order of my learned colleague, I agree with him on ground No. 2 of appeal, but I do not agree with findings given in respect of ground No. 1 of departmental appeal. This ground relates to depreciation on plant and machinery and furniture & fixture. facts emerging from orders of departmental authorities are that assessee-company is engaged in business of pipeline laying on contractual basis. Income-tax Department conducted search under section 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961 at premises of assessee's group of cases of which present company is member on 18-12-1992. During course of search, in order to cover up various discrepancies in different concerns of group for various assessment years, assessee declared Rs. one crore. But declaration under section 132(4) was specifically made in hands of two companies of group and two individuals of group. present company M/s. Sheth & Sura Engg. (P.) Ltd. was one of companies in whose hands income of Rs. 30 lakhs was declared in following manner for assessment year 1993-94: W.I.P. Rs. 20,00,000 Plant and Machinery Rs. 7,00,000 Furniture and Fixture Rs. 3,00,000 Rs. 30,00,000The assessee claimed depreciation on plant and machinery n d furniture and fixtures. According to Assessing Officer, assessee made declaration under section 132(4) of Rs. 7,00,000 on account of plant and machinery and Rs. 3,00,000 on account of furniture and fixtures. Assessing Officer required assessee to produce inventory of machinery. In response to said query, assessee vide its letter dated 27-12-1995 stated as under: as under: "We are unable to furnish inventory in respect of WIP, Plant and Machinery and Furnitures and Fixtures declared at time of search action under section 132." Assessing Officer observed that under section 32 of Act, in order t o claim depreciation on business asset, same must be owned by assessee and it must be used for business of assessee. According to Assessing Officer, assessee was not entitled to depreciation which it had claimed in statement of depreciation attached to income-tax return. Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,02,500 claimed on non- existent assets and added same to total income of assessee. When matter came up for consideration before CIT(A), he allowed claim of assessee stating as under: "I have considered submissions, I agree with appellant that since investment was shown in plant & machinery, furniture etc. it is proper that depreciation thereon should be allowed. It is not case that value shown by appellant for which depreciation was made did not constitute fair value. Hence, I hold that appellant is entitled to depreciation as per rules and date of search wherein claim was made and machinery etc. was shown and declaration under section 132(4) was made, should be considered as date of acquisition of assets and depreciation be worked out accordingly." Shri M. M. Srivastava, ld. DR kly supported order of Assessing Officer. He further submitted that assessee had not fulfilled conditions for claiming depreciation and, therefore, Assessing Officer was within his right to reject claim of assessee. Shri G.N. Joglekar, ld. counsel for assessee submitted that assessee had shown investment in plant and machinery, furniture etc., therefore, assessee was entitled to depreciation thereon. It was also stated by ld. counsel for assessee that assessee made declaration under section 132(4) of Act and offered sum of Rs. 7,00,000 for tax being investment made in plant and machinery and sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was offered for tax representing value of investment made in furniture and fixture. He further submitted that declaration made by assessee was accepted by department. At same time, value of existing plant and machinery in books of account was increased by Rs. 7,00,000. Similarly, value of existing furniture and fixture in books of account was increased by Rs. 3,00,000 it was specifically submitted by ld. counsel for assessee that, plant and machinery as well as furniture and fixture were already in existence and immediately after declaration assessee has increased value of existing plant and machinery in books of account by Rs. 7,00,000 and also increased value at existing furniture and fixture in books of account by Rs. 3,00,000. Accordingly, it was submitted that CIT(A) has rightly held that assessee is entitled to depreciation as per Rules. He accordingly submitted that date of search wherein claim was made and machinery etc. as shown and declaration under section 132(4) was made should be considered as date of acquisition of assets. He further submitted that CIT(A) has rightly directed Assessing Officer to work out depreciation accordingly. In instant case, assessee had declared undisclosed income of Rs. 30 lakhs for assessment year under consideration out of which Rs. 7 lakhs was shown under head 'Plant and machinery' and Rs. 3 lakhs was shown under head 'Furniture and fixture'. assessee claimed depreciation on plant and machinery and furniture and fixture, it is clear that above amount was offered for taxation and department has accepted same. It is true that above amounts offered for tax represented part value of existing plant n d machinery and furniture and fixture. Thus, plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures were being owned by assessee. Immediately after search, assessee had increased value of existing plant and machinery in books of account by Rs. 7 lakhs. Similarly, value of existing furniture and fixture in books of account was increased by Rs. 3 lakhs. In my opinion, once department has accepted undisclosed investment in plant and machinery n d furniture and fixtures and taxed same, therefore, there was no justification in rejecting rightful claim of assessee. In my view as regards depreciation on plant and machinery and furniture and fixture, department cannot take altogether different view stating that assessee is neither owner of assets nor it had used same for purpose of business in other words, department had accepted investment made by assessee in plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures, therefore, there was n o justification in disallowing depreciation on same having declared investment in plant and machinery and furniture and fixture, assessee could not be asked to prove ownership of assets. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corpn. [2000] 244 ITR 452 observed as under: "Section 32 of Income-tax Act, 1961 deals with depreciation. There is no requirement that asset should be used for whole of assessment year in question. term used in section 32(1) is 'owned by assessee'. But that does not bring in requirement that assessee should have remained owner of asset in question for entire previous year in question. t w o ingredients for depreciation allowance are that depreciable asset is owned by assessee and that it is used for purpose of assessee's business or profession." While interpreting words 'used for purpose of business', Hon'ble Kerala High Court held (Head Note) as under: "that words 'used for purpose of business' were capable of larger and narrower interpretation. If expression "used" as construed strictly it could be taken as connoting or requiring active employment or actual working of machinery, plant or building in business. On other hand, wider meaning would include not only cases where machinery, plant were actively employed but also cases where there was what maybe described as passive user of same in business. asset could be said to be used, when it was kept ready for use. Since Tribunal had recorded finding that there was positive material to show existence of asset at work site, and about passive user it could not be termed to be one without any basis or illegal. Accordingly, claim for depreciation was allowable." From above discussion, it would be clear that depreciable assets were owned by assessee and it was used for purpose of assessee's business, in view of decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of Geo Tech Construction Corpn. (supra), asset could be said to be used, when it was kept ready for use. word 'used' includes 'passive user'. Therefore, Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that depreciation can be allowed on depreciable assets on principle of passive user also in that view of matter, assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on assets in question, I may add here that CIT(A) has rightly observed that date of declaration under section 132(4) should be considered as date of acquisition of assets. In view of above, I uphold order of CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 1 of appeal is dismissed. ORDER UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Per Ahmad Fareed, Accountant Member. - As there is difference of opinion between Judicial Member and Accountant Member, matter is being referred to President of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with request that following question may be referred to Third Member or to pass such orders as President may desire: "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, assessee i s entitled to depreciation in respect of income disclosed under section 132(4) under head 'Plant and machinery' and 'furniture and fixture' without furnishing details thereof, though disclosure was accepted and taxed by department?" Per H.L. Karwa, Judicial Member. - As there is difference of opinion between Judicial Member and Accountant Member, matter is being referred to President of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with request that following question may be referred to Third Member or to pass such orders as President may desire: "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, assessee i s entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery, and furniture and fixtures, when value of same was disclosed under section 132(4) of Income- tax Act, 1961 and which disclosure was accepted and taxed by department?" THIRD MEMBER ORDER THIRD MEMBER ORDER Per Vimal Gandhi, President As Third Member. - On account of difference between learned Members of Pune Bench, following question has been referred to me under section 255(4) of Income-tax Act:- "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, assessee is entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures." 2. facts of case briefly stated are that assessee-company is engaged in business of laying pipelines. search was carried on premises of assessee under section 132 on 18-12-1992. During course of search, assessee agreed to surrender Rs. 30 lakhs for period relevant to assessment year 1993-94 as under:- W.I.P. Rs. 20,00,000 Plant and Machinery Rs. 7,00,000 Furniture and Fixture Rs. 3,00,000 Rs. 30,00,0003. assessee, in return for assessment year 1993-94, disclosed above amount as income and also claimed depreciation on value of plant, machinery, furniture and fixture declared under section 132(4). In other words, he claimed depreciation on Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs respectively. Assessing Officer, in course of assessment proceedings, asked assessee to furnish necessary details of assets on which depreciation was claimed. assessee was not able to furnish same and in its letter dated 27-12-1995 wrote as under:- "We are unable to furnish inventory in respect of WIP, plant and machinery and Furniture and Fixtures declared at time of search action under section 132." 4. Assessing Officer disallowed claim for depreciation as assessee had failed to furnish necessary details. He held that assets on which depreciation was claimed were not in existence. 5. disallowance of claim was challenged in appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, after considering facts and circumstances of case, allowed claim of assessee. revenue, being aggrieved, carried matter in further appeal to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. After hearing both parties, difference arose between learned Members of Bench who heard appeal. ld. A.M., in his short and brief order, observed that two requisite conditions for allowing depreciation allowance under section 32(1) of Income-tax Act were as under:- (i ) That depreciable asset is owned wholly or partially by assessee; (ii ) That it is used for purposes of assessee's business or profession. ld. AM also noted reply of assessee vide letter dated 27-12-1995. He also noted that assessee was required to furnish details with evidence regarding particulars of assets, its date of acquisition and its actual cost. In this case, assessee failed to furnish these details. He further observed that amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs represented "undisclosed income" and assessee did not produce any evidence to show that these amounts represented cost of plant and machinery and furniture and fixture to qualify for depreciation. He further observed that merely on account of disclosure of undisclosed income, assessee's claim for depreciation could not be allowed in absence of evidence to show that requisite conditions of section 32 of Act were fulfilled. He, therefore, held that order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could not be sustained. He allowed appeal of revenue on this ground in his proposed order. 7. Ld. J.M., in his separate proposed order, also noted facts relating to disclosure made by assessee under section 132(4) and his statement in letter dated 27-12-1995 filed before Assessing Officer. ld. J.M. further extracted relevant portion of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order allowing claim of assessee. He also noted submissions of both parties. He observed that from facts in case, it was clear that amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs was offered for taxation and department has accepted offer. It was further true that above amount represented part value of existing plant and machinery and furniture and fixture. Thus, plant and machinery and furniture and fixture were owned by assessee. Immediately after search, assessee increased value of existing plant and machinery in books of account by Rs. 7 lakhs. Similarly, value of existing furniture and fixture was increased by Rs. 3 lakhs in books of account. ld. J.M. in his proposed order has further observed:- "In my opinion, once department has accepted undisclosed investment in plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures and taxed same, therefore, there was no justification in rejecting rightful claim of assessee. In my view, as regards depreciation on plant and machinery and furniture and fixture, department cannot take altogether different view stating that assessee is neither owner of assets nor it had used same for purpose of business. In other words, department had accepted investment made by assessee in plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures, therefore, there was no justification in disallowing depreciation on same having declared investment in plant and machinery and furniture and fixture, assessee could not be asked to prove ownership of assets." 8. In support of above view, ld. J.M. placed reliance on decision of Kerala High Court in case of Geo Tech Construction Corpn. (supra). Relevant extracts from decision are quoted by him. In light of observations of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, ld. J.M. held that assessee was entitled to claim of depreciation in question. He ordered accordingly. 9. Third Member case was fixed for hearing and both parties have b e e n heard. ld. Representatives reiterated respective submissions accepted by ld. Members in their dissenting proposed orders. ld. Counsel drew my attention to order of revenue authorities under section 132(5) restraining assessee from using assets found during course of search. He, therefore, argued that existence of assets could not be in doubt. He also drew my attention to statement of chart wherein value of machinery and plant was enhanced by Rs. 7 lakhs and that of furniture and fixture by Rs. 3 lakhs. It was claimed that all conditions of section 32 were satisfied. Ld. Counsel accordingly supported order of Judicial Member. ld. CIT, D.R. opposed above submissions and reiterated that conditions of section 32 were not satisfied and assessee was not entitled to claim of depreciation. 10. There is no dispute that assessee made disclosure of Rs. 7 lakhs and R s . 3 lakhs under head 'Plant and machinery', furniture and fixture respectively. disclosed amount has been accepted. On equitable principle, assessee is entitled to relief. However, depreciation cannot be allowed merely based on equity or on commercial principle. It has to be allowed as per statutory provision. Mere disclosure of amount and investment in some assets whose description is withheld is not sufficient to claim deduction of depreciation. assessee has to satisfy conditions laid in section 32 of Income-tax Act. Further reference to rule 5 of I.T. Rules read with appendix to rules would show that depreciation at different rates is allowed on different items of plants and machinery. twin conditions are required to be satisfied: 1. Ownership of asset; and 2. user of asset for purposes of business. In this connection, query raised by Assessing Officer and assessee's reply dated 27-12- 1995 are relevant. assessee had specifically stated that he is unable to furnish inventories in respect of plant and machinery and furniture and fixture declared at time of search action under section 132 of Income-tax Act. That being position, I am little surprised at finding recorded by ld. J.M. in proposed order that amount disclosed represented enhanced value of existing plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures and that after search, value was modified and changed in books of account as per declaration under section 132(4) of Income-tax Act. above finding, based on changed stand, in my view, does not reconcile with admission made in letter dated 27-12-1995. assessee could have very well explained what was disclosed by assessee and whether whole or part of it represented machinery, furniture and fixture available with it, whether it represented difference in value of machinery/fixture already disclosed by assessee. No clear stand was taken. It could have given inventory or detail of above assets sought to be disclosed. Why that afterthought plea was permitted to be raised is not at all clear from record. In depreciation chart only amounts disclosed has been added without further claim. Be that as it may, assessee, in my view is not entitled to claim depreciation even if finding of ld. J.M. in proposed order is accepted without any objection to changed and new claim made by assessee. As admitted earlier, assessee is to prove ownership of assets and depreciation is to be allowed with reference to its cost or written down value, so relevant question is: what and when assets were acquired and at what cost? No such particulars are available on record nor any furnished by assessee as noted in detail and admitted by both Members. Did disclosed income represent total value of assets or merely difference in actual cost and cost disclosed? claim could not have been allowed without answering above questions. None of questions could be answered as assessee was unable to furnish any relevant particulars. Without details of assets neither depreciation could be worked out nor allowed. Therefore, merely saying that assessee is entitled to depreciation as disclosure of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs has been accepted in sense that above amount has been charged to tax, in my opinion, is not correct. Even if this ground is accepted by stretching and by imagining all facts in favour of assessee, assessee must prove that second condition relating to user of asset for purposes of business is also satisfied. assessee failed to furnish detail of assets. Now, without details, how and on what basis, Assessing Officer could examine that so- called assets were used for purposes of business. No enquiry into claim is possible. Therefore assessee cannot be said to have established second consideration. assessee refused to give any detail as to what was plant and machinery and fixture and how these items were used for purposes of business. Without detail, how question could be examined and proper finding recorded therein. Therefore, to enable Assessing Officer to examine question of ownership and user of asset, statutory provisions and rules insist that assessee should furnish prescribed particulars of assets. Without detail of particulars, question as discussed above cannot be examined. Therefore, in my view, it is difficult to hold that assessee satisfied conditions of section 32 and was eligible for claim of depreciation. 11. Ld. J.M., while deciding in favour of assessee, has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of C I T v. Geo Tech Construction Corpn. [2000] 244 ITR 452. In said case, court observed that Tribunal had recorded finding that there was positive material to show existence of asset at work site and about its positive user, it could not be termed to be one without any basis or illegal. Accordingly, claim for depreciation was allowable. In present case, without particulars of assets, existence of asset is very much in doubt. Besides, assessee must fail, as second condition relating to user of asset has not been established as discussed in detail. In case in hand, controversy whether it was passive or actual use of asset is not relevant at all. Further argument that beneficial provision of section 32 of Income-tax Act is entitled to liberal construction is also not in dispute. However, liberal construction cannot imply that conditions of section 32 are to be given go-bye. Therefore, in my view, decision in case of Geo Tech Construction Corpn. (supra) has no application. 12. For all above reasons, I agree with order proposed by ld. A.M. 13. Matter may now be placed before regular Bench for decision in accordance with law. *** DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE 3 v. SHETH & SURA ENGG. (P) LTD.