2016 (7) TMI 904 - AT - Income Tax

Suppression of income - whether he closing stock calls for reduction to the extent of the reduction of purchases due to wrong entry ? - Held that - It is clear from the order of CIT(A) that the assesse was not able to substantiate the fact that by reason of the inflation of purchases there was neutralizing entry whereby there was increase in the value of the closing stock and therefore there cannot be any inference of suppression of income. Even before us no fresh material is brought to our notice to either dislodge the findings of CIT(A) or to come to a conclusion contrary to the one reached by CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. Road tax and insurance premium - capital or revenue expenditure - Held that - When a new vehicle is acquired the insurance premium and the road tax paid would assume the character of the cost paid in acquiring the asset. But for incurring these expenses the vehicle cannot be put to use by the assessee. We are therefore of the view that the treatment of the road tax and insurance premium as capital expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the present case was proper and calls for no interference. Depreciation in respect of the Oil Tanker - Held that - CIT(A) has proceeded on the basis that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd has to give permission for use of the oil tanker by the assessee for transporting petroleum products and since such permission was not given it cannot be said that the tanker was kept ready for use. In our view this conclusion of the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. The circumstances viz. absence of permission of HPCL can at best lead to the conclusion that the assessee was unable to persuade Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to give permission for use of the oil tanker for transporting petroleum products. It cannot however be said that the oil tanker was not kept ready to put to use. There was no impediment for use of the oil tanker for transporting petroleum products and this fact is not disputed by the revenue. In the given facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the assessee has successfully established that the vehicle in question was ready for use though it was not actually put to use. We therefore are of the view that the claim of the assesee for deduction on account of depreciation ought to have been allowed and the same is directed to be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the claim for reduction of closing stock.
2. Disallowance of depreciation on an oil tanker.
3. Classification of road tax and insurance premium as capital expenditure.
4. Validity of assessment order under section 143(3) vis-à-vis section 143(1).
5. Applicability of section 44AE of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Claim for Reduction of Closing Stock:
The assessee contended that the closing stock should be reduced to account for the inflated purchase entries. The Assessing Officer (AO) found discrepancies in the purchases reported by the assessee and those confirmed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., leading to an addition of ?5,38,272/- as bogus purchases. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to substantiate that the inflated purchases were neutralized by a corresponding increase in the closing stock. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), observing that the assessee could not provide fresh evidence to disprove the findings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this ground.

2. Disallowance of Depreciation on an Oil Tanker:
The assessee claimed depreciation on an oil tanker, asserting it was ready for use despite not being actually used. The AO disallowed the claim, referencing section 44AE, which precludes deductions under sections 30 to 38 if income is declared under this section. The CIT(A) concurred, stating the assessee failed to prove the tanker was ready for use, as there was no evidence of seeking permission from Hindustan Petroleum during the relevant year. The Tribunal, however, found that the vehicle was indeed ready for use, noting the completion of registration, payment of road tax, insurance, and employment of a driver. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim.

3. Classification of Road Tax and Insurance Premium as Capital Expenditure:
The AO treated the road tax and insurance premium as capital expenditure, which the CIT(A) upheld, directing the AO to allow depreciation on the capitalized value. The Tribunal agreed, stating that these expenses are part of the cost of acquiring a new vehicle and are necessary for its use, thus correctly classified as capital expenditure.

4. Validity of Assessment Order under Section 143(3) vis-à-vis Section 143(1):
The assessee argued that the failure to dispose of the rectification petition against the order under section 143(1) prejudiced her. The Tribunal dismissed this additional ground, affirming that an order under section 143(3) supersedes an order under section 143(1), rendering the argument meritless.

5. Applicability of Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee mistakenly declared income under section 44AE, which applies to those engaged in the business of plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriages. The CIT(A) accepted that this section was inapplicable as the oil tanker was for the assessee's use. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already ruled in the assessee's favor on this point, and the assessee had no grievances.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting depreciation on the oil tanker while upholding the treatment of road tax and insurance as capital expenditure and dismissing the claim for reduction of closing stock. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were found to be without merit.

← Previous Next →