2015 (7) TMI 442 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of depreciation - Depreciation @40% or 15% - Held that - The material fact that the lorries were used in assessee s own business and had never been hired clearly clinches the issue against the assessee - In view of the clear legislative mandate which permits higher depreciation only to vehicles which were given out on hire the claim has rightly been rejected by the CIT(A). - Following decision of CIT vs Varindra Construction Company 2012 (4) TMI 332 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the order dated 19.02.2013 of the CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi for the 2006-07 assessment year.
2. Validity of proceedings under section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Sustaining an addition of excess depreciation claimed during the year under appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Correctness of the CIT(A) order
The appellant challenged the order of the CIT(A) on grounds of both law and facts. The AO rectified the assessment under section 154, noting excess depreciation claimed by the appellant on tankers. The appellant argued for consistency in allowing higher depreciation rates based on previous assessments. However, the CIT(A) upheld the rectification order under section 154, emphasizing that each assessment year is separate, and the principle of res judicata does not apply in taxation matters. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the appellant's tankers were used for its own business and were never hired out, hence not eligible for higher depreciation rates. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court to support its conclusion.

Issue 2: Validity of proceedings under section 154
The AO rectified the assessment under section 154 based on the audit party's observation of excess depreciation claimed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the higher depreciation rate should be retained for consistency with previous assessments. However, the Tribunal held that the rectification under section 154 was justified as the appellant's tankers were not used for hiring or commercial purposes, as clarified by various High Court judgments. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative mandate allows higher depreciation only for vehicles given out on hire, which was not the case for the appellant.

Issue 3: Sustaining addition of excess depreciation
The AO added excess depreciation claimed by the appellant after finding that the tankers were used for the appellant's own business and not for hiring purposes. The appellant argued for the higher depreciation rate based on previous assessments and certain court judgments. However, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's grounds, emphasizing that the legislative mandate permits higher depreciation only for vehicles given out on hire. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition of excess depreciation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition of excess depreciation claimed during the assessment year.