2018 (2) TMI 1937 - AT - Income Tax

Higher rate of depreciation on dumpers - CIT(A) defining assessee s business as transporter thereby concluding that it is entitled for higher rate of depreciation on dumpers as against 15% allowed in assessment proceedings resulting in disallowance - HELD THAT - AR is correct in his proposition that appellant s work include providing its vehicles for transportation to the third parties and the amount received on this count constitute part of business receipts of the appellant and therefore such vehicles are eligible for depreciation at the higher rate of 30% Departmental Representative however fails to dispute the fact above. We therefore find no reason to adopt a different approach in the instant case. The Revenue s sole substantive ground is therefore declined.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for higher rate of depreciation on dumpers.
2. Determination of business activity as transportation.
3. Classification of JCB/earth-moving machines as road transport vehicles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Higher Rate of Depreciation on Dumpers:
The Revenue's primary contention was that the CIT(A) erred in defining the assessee's business as transportation, thus allowing a higher rate of depreciation on dumpers. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had denied this higher depreciation rate, asserting that the assessee was not in the business of running vehicles on hire. The CIT(A) reviewed the appellant's submissions, noting that the appellant, a civil contractor, used vehicles for both its contractual obligations and transportation work for others, claiming depreciation at 30% for the latter.

2. Determination of Business Activity as Transportation:
The A.O. argued that there was no separate income from hire/freight, implying the appellant was not in the transportation business. The A.O. also noted that TDS was deducted under Section 194C for civil contracts, not under Section 194I, which applies to transport vehicles. However, the CIT(A) found that the appellant had indeed plied its vehicles on hire for third parties, presenting work orders and contracts that explicitly included transportation tasks, such as moving iron ore and filling materials. The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant's business included transportation, supported by separate ledger accounts for freight and transportation charges.

3. Classification of JCB/Earth-Moving Machines as Road Transport Vehicles:
The A.O. contended that JCB/earth-moving machines, although registered as motor lorries, were not road transport vehicles. The CIT(A) referenced a decision by the ITAT Rajkot Bench in the case of M/s. R. R. Construction, which held that dumpers used for loading-unloading and transportation of excavated material are road transport vehicles. This precedent was applied to the appellant's case, affirming that the vehicles in question qualified for higher depreciation.

Conclusion:
The CIT(A) determined that the appellant's vehicles were used in transportation activities and thus eligible for higher depreciation. The ITAT upheld this decision, noting that the A.O.'s reasons had already been reversed in a similar case (M/s. R. R. Construction). Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the higher depreciation rate for the appellant's vehicles.

Final Judgment:
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a higher depreciation rate on the appellant's vehicles was upheld. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on February 20, 2018.