9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of depreciation at 40% on trucks owned by petitioner for assessment year 1987-88. Rejection of claim by Assessing Officer and allowance of depreciation at 30%. Appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Gauhati allowing 40% depreciation. Department's appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, resulting in rejection of petitioner's claim. Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reference of questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Analysis: The petitioner's case revolved around claiming 40% depreciation on trucks used in transportation business for the assessment year 1987-88. Initially, the Assessing Officer allowed only 30% depreciation, which led to an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Gauhati. The Commissioner allowed the 40% depreciation based on evidence that the trucks were used in a business of running them on hire. However, the Department appealed this decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, which overturned the Commissioner's decision, stating that the petitioner failed to establish the trucks were used for transportation business on hire. The petitioner then filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requesting a reference of two questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The questions pertained to whether the trucks were public carrier vehicles and if the assessee was entitled to 40% depreciation instead of 30%. The Tribunal rejected the application, citing the petitioner's failure to prove the trucks were used for transportation business on hire. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal's grounds for rejection were factually incorrect, as evidence existed to support the trucks' use in transportation business. The counsel relied on previous orders to substantiate this claim. In response, the Department's representative contended that establishing the trucks' use in the transportation business was a factual matter, not a legal one, and therefore did not warrant a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Upon reviewing the Commissioner's order and the evidence presented, the High Court found that the rejection of the petitioner's reference request was unjustified. The Court noted the Commissioner's findings regarding the trucks' use in a business of running them on hire, supporting the claim for 40% depreciation. Consequently, the High Court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, to prepare a statement of the case on the two questions of law raised by the petitioner for further review. In conclusion, the High Court's decision to call for a statement of the case highlighted the importance of factual evidence in determining depreciation claims and the need for a thorough legal review of such matters to ensure fair assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
