2014 (9) TMI 573 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement for claim of depreciation on tanker Tanker not used during the year - Held that - The Tribunal rightly was of the view that the tanker was not used during the accounting year - there was a discrepancy even about the in the hire charges said to have been received by the assessee for transport of water - The explanation that was offered on behalf of the assessee that the tanker was used for transporting water on hire, to check the leakages, if any, the hire charges were allowed to be taken by the driver cannot be accepted - the tanker was not used during the closure of the accounting year thus, the order of the Tribunal denying the depreciation is upheld Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of depreciation on a tanker for the assessment year 1996-1997.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the claim of depreciation on a tanker for the assessment year 1996-1997. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claim, stating that it is only allowable on assets used for business purposes. The appellate authority and the Tribunal concurred with this decision, emphasizing that the tanker was not used for business during the relevant period. The Tribunal specifically noted the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the tanker was hired for water supply. The assessee argued that depreciation should be allowed even for passive usage, citing judicial precedents. However, the standing counsel for the department contended that the Tribunal's factual findings were not challenged, making the appeal unsustainable.

The High Court reviewed the orders of the assessing authority, appellate authority, and the Tribunal. It noted that all authorities had consistently found that the tanker was not used for business purposes during the relevant accounting year. The Tribunal also highlighted discrepancies in the claim of hire charges received for water transport. Despite the assessee's explanation regarding the tanker's usage for leak checking and hire charges being given to the driver, the Tribunal did not find supporting evidence. The High Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings that the tanker was not used during the accounting year, leading to the denial of depreciation benefits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.