1989 (4) TMI 49 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the Income-tax Officer can allow depreciation without the assessee's claim or requisite particulars?
1. Facts and Circumstances:
The case pertains to the assessment year 1976-77 where the assessee, engaged in transport business, did not claim depreciation for three tankers in the return. The Income-tax Officer calculated depreciation based on a note in the return, leading to a dispute.

2. Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal held that without the assessee furnishing necessary particulars, the Income-tax Officer cannot suo motu allow depreciation. The court referred to Circular No. 29D(XIX-14) of 1965, emphasizing that if an assessee has not claimed depreciation, the Officer cannot grant it.

3. Precedents:
The court cited cases like Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Muthukaruppan Chettiar v. CIT to support the requirement for the assessee to provide particulars for claiming depreciation.

4. Decision:
The court affirmed that depreciation is a benefit for the assessee to claim, not to be imposed against their wishes. Both questions were answered in favor of the assessee, stating that depreciation cannot be forced upon the assessee if not claimed. The reference was disposed of with no costs awarded.