9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivided family. It carried on various businesses, among them was the business of plying lorries for hire. One of the lorries MYS 5424X was purchased new during the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1952-53 for a sum of ₹ 23,769. In that accounting year it ran for 4+ months. The depreciations allowed in regard to this lorry from 1952-53 are as under : Assessment Depreciation (Rs.) Additional Initial year depreciation (Rs.) Depreciation (Rs.) 1952-53 1,981 1,981 1953-54 4,754 4,952 1954-55 2,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an for 4 5/6th months. No depreciation was allowed because the lorry was sold in the same year. The difference between the cost price and the depreciation allowed amounted to ₹ 6,865. The Income-tax Officer assessed the difference between this figure and the sale price of ₹ 9,000 as profit under section 10(2)(vii). The figure assessed by the Income-tax Officer was ₹ 2,075. The correct figure would appear to be ₹ 2,135. The assessee appealed, among other things, against the computation of the profit under section 10(2)(vii) in 1955-56 and 1956-57. The contention was that the initial depreciation allowed in respect of the two lorries mentioned above should not be taken into account in arriving at the written down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of the assessee for the exclusion of the initial depreciation in arriving at the written down value of the assets for the purpose of computing the profit under section 10(2)(vii). The question of law common to both the years is : Whether the initial depreciation allowed under section 10(2)(via) should be taken into account in ascertaining the written down value for the purpose of computing the profit under section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? In regard to the assessment year 1955-56 the assessee has raised the following question of law : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated February 29, 1960, and communicated to the assessee on A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncometax ([1954] 25 I. T. R. 79), have held that all that the section required was that the assessment of the income and the determination of the tax payable should be completed within that period and that it was not necessary that the terms of the order of assessment should be communicated to the assessee within that period. When there is direct authority under the Income-tax Act itself that it would be sufficient that an order is made before the expiry of four years and that it does not extend to the date of service of the order on the appellant, there does not seem to be any necessity to refer to a decision under a different enactment. Following respectfully the decision of the Madras High Court, I hold that the order of the Income-tax O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not apposite for our present purpose. Now coming to the first question, here again the decided cases are against the contention advanced by Sri Srinivasan : see Popular Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax ([1955] 28 I. T. R. 309) and Asoka Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax ([1958] 33 I. T. R. 377). Sri Srinivasan contends that these decisions require reconsideration as they did not notice certain material portions of section 10(2)(vi). The aspects that were considered material by Sri Srinivasan are : (1) that the second part of section 10(2)(vi) does not say in respect of depreciation and (2) that if section 10(2)(vi) only dealt with the depreciation allowances, clause (c) of the proviso would have mentioned the aggre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
