9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been disallowed on purely ad hoc basis and no specific expenditure/transaction has been highlighted by the Assessing Officer which suggest that these expenses have not been incurred for the purposes of the business. In the light of that, we delete the ad hoc disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 53/JP/14 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2016 - Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) And Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : M. Gargieya, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Ajay Malik, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax ORDER Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Jaipur, dated October 30, 2013, wherein the assessee has taken the following effective grounds of appeal : (1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made on account of depreciation claimed under section 32 of the Act of ₹ 21,02,033 made by the assessee. The disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able and does not call for any interference. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation of ₹ 21,02,033 is held to be justified and the same is sustained. The appellant fails on this ground. 2.2 The learned authorised representative has submitted that there is no dispute raised by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown such tanker, trailers and trucks in the audited balance-sheet (schedule D) as an owner. The said tankers are admittedly used for the business of the asses see and day-to-day running expenses are also claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account and the same have been allowed by the Assess ing Officer without any dispute. Notably even the income from the truck plying has been duly declared by the appellant and assessed as such though the tankers are registered in the name of Shri Narendra Palsania and Shri Prabhu Dayal. The facts are not denied that the assessee was not the registered owner of the truck. However, the facts are also admitted that the assessee purchased these trucks from two persons, namely, Shri Prabhu Dayal Choudhary and Shri Narendra Singh Palsania through agreements both dated April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable the others being excluded therefrom and having the right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usurp in his own right would be the 'owner' of the building though the formal deed or title may not have been executed or registered as contemplated by the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration of Property Act, etc. In that case, it was held that 'owner', for purposes of section 22, is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right and the requirement of registration of sale deed in the context of section 22 is not warranted. 3. Anil Bulk Carriers P. Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 625 (All) held that : 'Fact that registration of the vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was granted on April 1, 1997, was of no relevance as regards the allowability of depreciation. That apart, the word 'used' under section 32 has to be given wider meaning and it will include assets ready for use'. Hence, the impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full and the assessee be held entitled to the claim of depreciation as made. 2.3 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of Goods Act . Further, the hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC) has held that anyone in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to use and occupy the property in his own right would be the owner of building for the purpose of section 32(1) though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered. The said proposition of law is fully satisfied in the instant case where the assessee has claimed depreciation on the vehicles having possession and dominion over the income and control over their operations. In light of the above, we are of the view that the appellant is eligible to claim depreciation on the vehicles and, accordingly, we allow ground No. 1. 3. Regarding ground No. 2, the brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceeding the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited a sum of ₹ 15,20,280 on account of trip expenses. On verification it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the expenses are incurred by the drivers on the way for toll tax, RTO/pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
