9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will govern all the three appeals. Since the issue has been discussed in greater detail in the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1986-87, we will refer to the facts of that year, as illustrative. The following questions have been posed for adjudication. "1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in accepting the claim of depreciation by the assessee on the trucks allegedly purchased at the end of the accounting year? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the transactions made by the assessee did not form part of a device to lessen the tax liability and did not fall within the category of colourable device? 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in not decidin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer undertook investigation into the said claim. It was found that the assessee had shown to have procured ten trucks from its sister concern during the period between March 3, 1986, and March 15, 1986, without making any payment and these trucks were claimed to have been given on hire to Bombay Okara Cargo Limited and Bombay Okara Carriers Movers Registered at Rs.300 and Rs.290 per day, respectively. The hire charges amounting to Rs.14,850 were shown to have been received from the said concerns. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish particulars regarding purchase, registration, fabrication of body on chassis and evidence of receipt of hire charges. He also recorded the statement of one Vijay Kumar, accountant of the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. On consideration of the rival submissions, the Tribunal endorsed the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue. While doing so, the Tribunal heavily relied on the statement of the said Vijay Kumar dated March 14, 1989, and the aforenoted affidavit of the director of Bombay Okara Carriers. The Tribunal also observed that the said transactions made in the normal course of business could not be termed as part of the device to lessen tax liability. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the present appeals have been filed. We have heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finding is so per verse or unreasonable that no person acting judicially and properly instructed on law could have arrived at it. In the instant case, we find from the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), dated February 20, 1990, that one of the issues to be examined by the Assessing Officer in terms of the said order was whether the trucks in question were given on hire or not, in other words, put to use during the previous year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) thought it proper to give such a direction despite the fact that the statement of the said Vijay Kumar and the affidavit of the director of the transport company were already on record. To comply with the said direction, the Assessing Officer issued fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
