9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61 and invocation of power u/s 148, ibid ., for the purpose of Section 147, ibid. , on 01.03.2013 was bad and therefore, overruling of the objection of the appellant was bad. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 24.10.2014 was also without jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the issue on the availability of depreciation which the appellant had availed, appears to have been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited. [ 2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT ] held if the lessee was in fact the owner, he would have claimed depreciation on the vehicles, which, as specifically recorded in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, was not done. It would be a strange situation to have no clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissing W.P.No.30659 of 2014, whereby, challenge to the assessment order dated 24.10.2014 has been rejected by giving liberty to the appellant to work out the remedy before the appellate authority. 2. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is inspired from the decision rendered on 23.04.2021 in W.P.Nos.3005 of 2013 and 28434 of 2014. There is no discussion on the merits of the case. The appellant had earlier filed W.P.No.8171 of 2013, whereby the appellant had challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 23.02.2012 and the order dated 01.03.2013, disposing of the objection of the appellant overruling the objection of the appellant for re-opening the assessment. During the pendency of the aforesaid w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he objection of the appellant was bad. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 24.10.2014 was also without jurisdiction. 5. As a matter of fact, the issue on the availability of depreciation which the appellant had availed, appears to have been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and Another [(2013) 3 SCC 541]. Paragraph 28.3 from the said decision reads as under : 28.3. If the lessee was in fact the owner, he would have claimed depreciation on the vehicles, which, as specifically recorded in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, was not done. It would be a strange situation to have no claim of depreciation in case of a particular de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
