9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member Assessee by: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R. ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Ahmedabad vide order dated 12- 02-2019 passed for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- Your appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as Learned CIT ] dated 12/02/2019 presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal set out hereunder are independent of and without prejudice to each other: 1.0 The learned CIT erred in law and on facts in passing order u/s 263 of the Act. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no such order u/s 263 was warranted. It is submitted that it be so held now and order passed u/s 263 be quashed. 2.0 Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT erred in law and on facts in passing order u/s 263 when necessary enquiries relating to the issue un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items including purchases of potatoes, seeds, bardan, changes in inventories, employee expenses, finance costs and other expenses. None of the income/revenue show any income of freight for running the trucks on hire. Although the truck carting expenses has an amount at Rs. 17,46,212/- in schedule-20. The assessee has also shown an income of Rs. 7,335/- on sale of truck. There is no expenditure shown on salary of driver, diesel, toll tax and other truck operating expenses in the accounts. From the submissions, recorded, account of truck rent expenses for Rs. 63,33,914/- is available and transferred to the purchase account. During the present hearing also, though the assessee has submitted that it has received a sum of Rs. 5.80 lakhs as freight income but no details of expenses on running those trucks such as driver s salary, toll tax tec. with evidence thereof has been furnished. 5. While completing the assessment and allowing the depreciation @ 30% on trucks owned by the assessee, it was imperative on the part of the A.O. to conduct enquiries to ensure whether these trucks are used by the assessee running them on hire separately from the business of trading in potatoes and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s forming part of the profit loss account was made during assessment proceedings, however no separate enquiry/analysis regarding the claim of higher depreciation @30% in respect of trucks used for hire was done during the course of assessment proceedings. The counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the case of Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 38 SOT 208 (Mum), that once the asset enters the block of assets and depreciation on the same has been allowed in earlier years, then even if the assets were not put to use during the year under consideration, depreciation was allowable in the same. Similarly in the instant facts, once the trucks have entered the block of assets and depreciation has been allowed thereon @30% in the earlier year, then following the above law on the subject, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of higher depreciation @30% on trucks in this year as well. In response, Ld. Departmental Representative argued that the primary issue before us is whether the trucks were used for the purpose of letting out on hire. He drew our attention to page 44 of the paper book to point out that no income was earned by the assessee by way of plying the trucks on hire basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction Company Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) IT(SS)A No. 178 to 182/Ahd/2009). However, in the facts of the case, there is nothing on record to demonstrate (either from any agreement between the parties or from financial records) to show that assessee was engaged in business of letting out vehicles on hire so as to be eligible for a higher claim of depreciation @30%. The various assessment records point out to the fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of sale of potatoes, seeds etc. and trucks were used primarily for the assessee s own business and assessee was not in the business of hiring out the trucks and earning rental income thereon, which is a prerequisite to be eligible for claim of higher depreciation @30% on trucks. Also, while allowing the claim of the assessee for higher depreciation, the counsel for the assessee has not been able to demonstrate from the assessment records that this aspect was enquired into/analysed by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings . We are somehow not persuaded to agree with the contention of the counsel for the assessee that if an incorrect/higher claim of depreciation has been allowed to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of law is concerned, it is well-settled and needs no further discussion. In taxation-matters, the strict rule of res judicata as envisaged by section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has no application. As a general rule, each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years, because it determines the tax for a particular period. It is therefore, open to the revenue/taxing Authority to consider the position of the assessee every year for the purpose of determining and computing the liability to pay tax or octroi on that basis in subsequent years. A decision taken by the authorities in the previous year would not estop or operate as res judicata for subsequent year , [vide Maharana Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO1959 Supp. (2) SCR 547 : AIR 1959 SC 881; Visheshwar Singh v. CIT [1961] 3 SCR 287; Instalment Supp. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1962] 2 SCR 644; New Jehangir Vakil Mills v. CIT [1964] 2 SCR 971; Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 172; Devilal v. STO [1965] 1 SCR 686; Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 1 SCR 913; M.M. Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 1 SCR 65; Kapur Chand v. Tax Recovery Officer [1969] 1 SCR 691; CIT, W.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
