2001 (10) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves three appeals u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89.

Issue 1: Claim of Depreciation
The primary issue revolves around the correctness of upholding the claim of depreciation by the assessee on trucks allegedly purchased at the end of the accounting year. The Assessing Officer suspected this claim to be a device to reduce tax liability, leading to disallowance of depreciation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the assessment for re-examination, emphasizing the need to determine if the trucks were genuinely given on hire.

Issue 2: Tax Liability and Colorable Device
The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the transactions made by the assessee were a means to lessen tax liability or constituted a colorable device. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and evidence, concluded that the transactions were part of normal business operations and not aimed at reducing tax liability.

Issue 3: Nature of Assets and Business
Another aspect of the dispute was whether the trucks in question were held as stock-in-trade or fixed assets entitled to depreciation. Additionally, the Tribunal was asked to decide on the true nature of the assessee's business, considering the specific context of the truck transactions.

Issue 4: Res Judicata and Perverse Order
The Tribunal was also tasked with determining if the principle of res judicata applied in the case, given the absence of fresh material justifying a deviation from previous views. Furthermore, the question of whether the Tribunal's order was perverse based on the facts presented was raised for consideration.

The judgment highlighted discrepancies in the evidence presented regarding the use of trucks and the validity of the claim for depreciation. The court admitted the appeal to address substantial questions of law, focusing on the material supporting the conclusion that the trucks were given on hire and the correctness of accepting the depreciation claim. The appellant was directed to file relevant documents for further review, and the appeal was scheduled for a regular hearing.