2014 (9) TMI 733 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation on assets of hire purchase and leasing business setting up of new business i.e. new source of income - depreciation in respect of assets of the hire purchase and leasing business of the appellant has been allowed only for 12 months as against the claim of the appellant -assessee for 22 months. - Held that - Assessee was having two separate bank accounts for each of the firm - assessee prepared two balance sheets and profit & loss account - The funds provided by the assessee s firm to the new business entity was shown as investment in its balance sheet - There is no interconnection between the businesses of the assessee - The existing business of the assessee is trading of engines , whereas the new business comprised of hire purchase and leasing - there is no common pool of funds for both the businesses there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against ITAT order for Assessment Year 1989-90 on substantial questions of law regarding depreciation allowance for hire purchase and leasing business and whether the new business is part of the original business.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the ITAT order for the Assessment Year 1989-90. The substantial questions of law raised included the justification of allowing depreciation for 22 months instead of 12 months for assets of the hire purchase and leasing business. The appellant argued that the new business should be considered part of the original business due to common management and financial interconnection.

2. The case involved the assessee starting a new business in hire purchase and leasing while already deriving income from trading diesel engines. The appellant claimed depreciation allowance for 22 months for the new business, contending it was an extension of the original business. The AO rejected the claim, which was upheld by the appellate authorities, leading to the appeal.

3. The appellant argued that both businesses had common management, financial interconnection, and were part of the same business. Citing various case laws, the appellant sought to establish that the new business should be treated as an extension of the original business, justifying the depreciation claim for 22 months.

4. The Department contended that the businesses were separate, maintaining distinct bank accounts, balance sheets, and profit & loss accounts. They argued that there was no common fund and the new business was not interconnected with the original trading business. The funds provided by the original business were treated as investments in the new business.

5. The High Court observed that the appellant maintained separate bank accounts, balance sheets, and profit & loss accounts for each business. There was no common pool of funds, and the original business of trading engines was distinct from the new hire purchase and leasing business. The Court found no basis to interfere with the lower authorities' decision, as the issue was factual and did not warrant intervention.

6. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the Department, upholding the lower authorities' decision to reject the depreciation claim for 22 months. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, concluding that the new business was not part of the original business for the purpose of depreciation allowance.