9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) on 20.02.1997 and it was accepted. The assessee company furnished another revised return on 24.10.1997 admitting nil income after claiming deduction under Section 80M. In the memo of income, it is stated that the assessee had inadvertently claimed depreciation @ 20% on 25 centers costing Rs. 1,10,87,350/- which were purchased on 28.03.1996. In this return, the depreciation claimed on this was withdrawn. This return was also processed on 09.03.1998 accepting the nil return. The case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. Notices were issued along with detailed questionnaires. After hearing the assessee, the Assessing Authority was of the view that it is not clear whether the vehicles were purchased by the alleged lesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed on these vehicles allegedly leased to the 26 persons. Similarly, depreciation was disallowed in respect of other vehicles to an extent of 20%. Thus, the depreciation in a sum of Rs. 75,28,720/- claimed by the assessee was disallowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority was of the view that the assessee only discharged the primary onus to show that it owned the vehicles by showing original purchase bills of the vehicles and also lease agreements to show that the vehicles were leased. But when the Assessing Officer sought to verify the claim and pointed out the materials to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter he had claimed the depreciation to which he is entitled to in law for which he is the owner of the vehicles. To substantiate his claim that he is the owner of the vehicles he has produced the original purchase bills of all the vehicles as well as the lease agreements, which he has entered into with the lessees. He has accounted for the entire lease rental in respect of all those vehicles in his profit and loss account. It is thereafter he has claimed deduction at 40% on the ground that it is the lessee who is using the vehicle. Now the claim for depreciation in respect of 36 + 26 + 3 vehicles is rejected on the ground that the assessee has failed to establish that they continue to be the owner of those vehicles. 5. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnised as the owner apart from the persons in whose name the motor vehicles stand registered. Therefore, merely because the 36 persons to whom summons were issued claim that they are the owners, it does not mean that the assessee has failed to establish his claim of ownership. The purchase receipt and the lease agreement shows that the assessee is the owner and the lessee who was put in possession under the agreement is also owner under the Act. This legal aspect has not been kept in mind by the authorities. 7. In so far as the remaining 26 persons to whom summons issued were concerned, merely because they did not respond or the assessee did not furnish the correct addresses of those persons to be summoned, it does not lead to an inference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
