INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO., JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1168/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0301 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROONIPAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 13; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1168/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO. D-185A, BHRAGHU MARG, BANIPARK, JAIPUR- 302016. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. TOLFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAFI 5025 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUKESH KHANDELWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROONIPAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19/12/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/12/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 05.08.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING SOLE G ROUND OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN RESTRICTING DEPRECIATIO N ON NEW CAR PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AT 15% AS AGAINST ELIGIB ILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO CLAIM 50%. ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 2 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADING OF PUMP SETS, AC GENERATORS, DIESEL ENGINES AND OTHER ALLIED PRODUCTS. THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 30.1.2013 THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 22.02.2015 AND ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W. S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED WHEREIN THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE FIRM AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,80,030/- WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASONS THAT THE VEHICLE SO PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT Q UALIFY AS A TRANSPORT VEHICLE, THUS NOT FALLING IN THE DEFINITI ON OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 50% A S PRESCRIBED. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SUSTAINED THE SAID ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE NEW CLAUSE III (3)(VIA) INSERTED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2009 DATED 19.01.2009 APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AND NOT TO THE MOTOR CAR AND ONCE THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR MOTOR CAR, IT WILL OVER RIDE GENERAL CLAUSES AS APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION @ 50% ON THE NEWLY PURCHASED CAR (REGISTERED AS LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHO RITY), THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2009 (F.NO. 142/0 1/09-TPL) DATED 19.01.2009 AS PER WHICH A NEW ENTRY WAS INSERTED IN THE TABLE TO NEW APPENDIX 1, IN PART A RELATING TO TANGIBLE ASSETS U NDER THE HEADING III, MACHINERY AND PLANT IN ITEM NO. 3 AND THE DEPRECIAT ION RATE WAS PRESCRIBED @ 50% AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT SAID R ATE ON THIS NEW VEHICLE. AS PER THIS NEWLY INSERTED ENTRY, DEPRECIA TION ON NEW ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 3 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ACQUIRED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2009 TO 30.09.2009 AND PUT TO USE BEFORE 01.10.2009 WAS ENT ITLED TO DEPRECIATION @ 50%. IN THE SCHEDULE TO DEPRECIATION , THERE IS REFERENCE TO PARA 6 OF THE NOTES BELOW THE TABLE WHICH DEFINE S THE TERM COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AS UNDER :- ' COMMERCIAL VEHICLE' MEANS 'HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE', 'H EAVY PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE', 'LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE', 'MEDIUM GOODS VEHICLE' AND 'MEDIUM PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE' BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE 'MAXI-CAB', 'MOTOR-CAB', 'TRACTOR' AND 'ROAD-ROLLER'. THE EXPRESSIONS 'HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE', 'HEAVY PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE', 'LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE', 'MEDIUM GOODS VEHICLE', 'MEDIUM PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE', 'MAXI-CAB', 'MOTO R-CAB', 'TRACTOR' AND 'ROAD-ROLLER' SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY AS ASSIGNED TO THEM IN SECTION 2 OF TH E MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (59 OF 1988). 4. THE ABOVE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REFER S TO SECTION 2 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. AS PER SECTION 2 OF A BOVE SAID ACT, THE DEFINITION OF LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE IS AS UNDER :- (21) 'LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE' MEANS A TRANSPORT VEHICL E OR OMNIBUS THE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF EITHER OF WHICH OR A MOTOR CAR OR TRACTOR OR ROAD-ROLLER THE UNLADEN WEIGHT OF ANY OF WHICH, DOES NOT EXCEED 7,500 KILOGRAMS. ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 4 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CAR PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS HAVING AN UNLADEN WEIGHT OF 1420 KGS, AS CERTIFIED BY THE REG IONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND HENCE COMES IN THE DEFINITION OF LIGH T MOTOR VEHICLE. ONCE IT COMES UNDER THE HEAD LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE, IT COMES INTO THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AS PER PARA 6 BE LOW THE TABLE OF DEPRECIATION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF THE AP PELLANT IS PERFECTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAS STA TED THAT CAR IS NOT A TRANSPORT VEHICLE. IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO ON WHAT BASIS HE REACHED ON THE CONCLUSION THAT CAR IS NOT A TRANSPO RT VEHICLE. THE WORD TRANSPORT HAS BEEN DEFINED BY WIKIPEDIA AS 'TRANSPO RT OR TRANSPORTATION IS THE MOVEMENT OF HUMANS, ANIMALS AND GOODS FROM O NE LOCATION TO ANOTHER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ACTION OF TRANSPORT IS DEFINED AS A PARTICULAR MOVEMENT OF AN ORGANISM OR THING FROM A POINT A TO A POINT B.' THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO THAT CAR IS NOT A TRANSPORT VEHICLE IS NOT CORRECT. 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE CAR PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEPRECIAB LE @ 15% ON THE BASIS OF THE REASON THAT A SEPARATE ENTRY IS PROVID ED IN THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND HENCE IT CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF T HIS FRESH ENTRY INSERTED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2009. IN THIS CON NECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION CONTAINS PART III AS MACHINERY AND PLANT WHEREIN ITEM NO. 1 PERTAINS TO MACHINERY AND PLANT (WITH CERTAIN EXCLUSIONS) AND ENTRY NO. 2 PERTAINS TO MOTOR CARS ETC. SO FAR AS ITEM NO. 3 IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT FOR A PARTICULAR MACH INERY OR PLANT. IN THIS ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 5 ITEM NO. 3, THERE ARE AS MANY AS 13 ENTRIES. IN THE SE THIRTEEN ENTRIES, THE RELEVANT ENTRY APPEARS AT SERIAL NO. VIA. ENTRI ES NUMBERING III TO VI ARE ALL ENTRIES WHICH HAVE BEEN INSERTED FOR GIVING EXTRA DEPRECIATION FOR PURCHASE OF NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. SUCH ENTRIES A RE INSERTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT TO BOOST CERTAIN INDUSTRIES AS DUE TO SU CH INCENTIVES, THE PUBLIC IS ATTRACTED TO PREPONE THEIR PURCHASES OF C OMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND THE COMPANIES MANUFACTURING SUCH COMMERCIAL VEH ICLES BECOME ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT. 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT ENTRY WAS INSERTED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2009 WHEREIN THE GOVT. INITIAL LY FIXED UP DATE FROM 01.01.2009 TO 31.03.2009 AND THE SAME WAS EXTENDED TO 30.09.2009 VIDE IT (ELEVENTH AMDT.) RULES, 2009 W.E.F. 01.04.2 010. THE LANGUAGE USED IN THIS NEW INSERTED ENTRY IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE AND IF ONE GOES BY PLANE MEANING OF THE TERMS DEFINED THEREIN, A CONCL USION WILL BE DRAWN THAT LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLES HAVING UNLADEN WEIGHT LES S THAN 7500 KGS. WILL ALSO QUALIFY FOR 50% DEPRECIATION. 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. BL UE STEEL ENGINEERS P LTD. V/S DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 6411/MUM/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.05.2012) WHEREIN THE DISPUTE PERTAINED TO RATE OF DEPRECIAT ION ALLOWABLE ON CAR PURCHASED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2001-02 WHEREIN THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 50% ON THE PURCHASE OF NEW CAR BY RELYING ON ENTRY NO. VI OF ITEM NO. 3 OF SCH EDULE FOR MACHINERY AND PLANT WHICH ALLOWED AN ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION @ 50% ON NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLES PURCHASED DURING PREVIOUS YEAR 2001-02. THE SAID ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 6 CLAIM WAS DECLINED BY THE AO AND THE CIT (A). HOWEV ER THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM BY STATING THAT DEFINITION OF COM MERCIAL VEHICLE HAD ITSELF BEEN GIVEN IN THE RULES WHICH ALSO INCLUDES LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE HAVING UNLADEN WEIGHT LESS THAN 7500 KGS. NOWHERE I T HAS BEEN DEFINED THAT THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SHOULD BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRE. ON THE CONTRARY, SUB CLAUSE 6 OF CLAUSE 3 OF PART I II OF APPENDIX - 1 PROVIDES THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SHOULD BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. ONCE A DEFINITION HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE APPENDIX TO THE INCOME TAX RULES ITSELF, THERE IS N O NEED FOR LOOKING OTHER DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AS GIVEN IN VARIOUS DICTIONERIES. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE CASE OF SHAH RUKH KHAN V /S DCIT (ITA NO. 1489/MUM/2006 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.07.2009) AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF 50% ON THE CARS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS. 9. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COURTS HAVE CONSIS TENTLY HELD THAT A SPECIAL PROVISION IN A STATUTE OR IN RULES WOULD OV ERRIDE A GENERAL PROVISION. HERE THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN FOR NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ACQUIRED BETWEEN CERTAI N DATES AND SAME OVERRIDES GENERAL ENTRY. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS PURCHASED A SMALL FAMILY LUXURY CAR AND NOT A TRANSPORT VEHICLE AND THE SAME CANNOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. SHE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 7 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A MOTOR CAR HAVING AN UNLADEN WEIGHT OF 1420 KGS WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS A LIGHT MOTOR VEH ICLE BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY. THE NEW ENTRY FOR CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION @ 50% FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSERTED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2009 DATED 19.01.2009 HAS BEEN DEFINED TO INCLUDE LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE AS PER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. ONCE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHO RITY UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HAS REGISTERED THE VEHICLE AS LIG HT MOTOR VEHICLE, THERE DOESNT REMAIN ANY DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE S MOTOR CAR FALLS IN THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. THEREFORE, WE DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION @ 50 % AND THE SAME IS HEREBY ALLOWED. WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR VIEW HAS B EEN TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S BLUE STEEL ENGI NEERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD IN PA RA 8 TO 8.2 AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED THREE HYUNDAI ACCENT CARS ON 11-2-2002 WHICH WAS PR IOR TO 1-4- 2002. ADMITTEDLY, THESE CARS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PUR POSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE SHORT CONTROVERSY INVOLVED WHETHER THE DEPRECIATION ON THESE CARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED @ 20% OR @ 50%. CLAUSE 2 OF PART III OF APPENDIX I PROVIDES MOTOR CARS ACQUIRED OR PUT TO USE ON OR AFTER 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1990, T HE RATE OF DEPRECIATION FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 TO 2005-2006 ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 8 WAS ALLOWABLE @ 20%. SUB-CLAUSE (VI) AND (VIA) OF C LAUSE 3 OF PART III OF APPENDIX I PROVIDES THAT NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, WHICH IS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 200 1 BUT BEFORE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 OR PUT TO USE ON OR AFTER 1ST DA Y OF APRIL, 2002 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE RATE OF DEPRECIATI ON IS 50%. THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN NOTE 6 OF THE APPENDIX I, WHICH DEFINES COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AS U NDER :- 6. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE MEANS HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE , HEAVY PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE, LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE, M EDIUM GOODS VEHICLE, AND MEDIUM PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE MAXI-CAB, MOTOR-CAB, TRACTOR AND ROAD- ROLLER. THE EXPRESSIONS HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE, HEAVY PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE, LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE, MEDIUM GOODS VEHI CLE, MEDIUM PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE, MAXI-CAB, MOTOR-CAB, TRACTOR AND ROAD-ROLLER SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY AS ASSIGNED TO THEM IN SECTION 2 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ( 59 OF 1988). 8.1 THE ASSESSEES CARS BEING LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLES AND THE DEFINITION OF LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN SECTION 2 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, WHICH DEFINES AS UNDER :- 2(21)- LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE MEANS A TRANSPORT VEHICLE OR OMNIBUS THE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF EITHER OF MOTOR CAR OR TRAC TOR OR ROAD ROLLER, UNLADEN WEIGHT OF ANY OF WHICH, DOES NOT EX CEED [7500] KGS. THUS, THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE HAD IT SELF BEEN GIVEN IN THE RULES WHICH ALSO INCLUDES LIGHT MOTOR VEHICL E HAVING UNLADEN WEIGHT OF LESS THAN 7,500KGS. NOWHERE IT HA S BEEN DEFINED THAT THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SHOULD BE USE D ONLY FOR THE ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 9 PURPOSE OF HIRE. ON THE CONTRARY SUB-CLAUSE 6 OF CL AUSE 3 OF PART III OF APPENDIX-I, PROVIDES THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SHOULD BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. ONC E A DEFINITION HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE APPENDIX TO THE INCOME TAX RULES ITSELF, THERE IS NO NEED FOR LOOKING OTHER DEFINITION OF C OMMERCIAL VEHICLE AS GIVEN IN VARIOUS DICTIONARIES. THE REPO RT OF NEWSPAPERS AS HAVE BEEN REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NO RELEVANCE HERE OR GIVES ANY SEPARATE MEANING WIT H REGARD TO DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. IN THIS CASE, T HE GROSS WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE AS PER THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IS 820 KG, WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAN 7500 KGS AND, THEREFORE, IT COMES WI THIN THE PURVIEW OF LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE. 8.2 SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHAH RUKH KHAN (SUPRA), WHEREI N THE SAME ANALYSIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT AND CAME T O THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION :- 4.3 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED TH E RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE RAT E OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BMW CAR PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE CLAUSE (1A) OF PART III OF APPENDIX-I PRESCRIBES DE PRECIATION @20% IN CASE OF MOTOR CARS OTHER THAN THOSE USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM AT HIRE. IN CASE OF MOTOR BUSES, MO TOR LORRIES AND MOTOR TAXIES USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE, THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED AT A HIGHER RATE OF 40% AS PER CLAUSE 2(II) OF PART III. HOWEVER, CLAUSE 2(IID) WA S INSERTED W.E.F. 1.4.2002 AS PER WHICH A NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHIC H IS ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 10 ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER 1.4.2001 BUT BEFORE 1.4.2002 A ND IS USED BEFORE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION @ 50% .THE NOTE (3A) DEFINES THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHICH INCLUDES LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2 OF THE MOTOR VEHIC LES ACT, 1988. THE LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HAS BEEN DEFINED TO MEAN DIFFERENT TRANSPORT VEHICLES INCLUD ING THE MOTOR CAR THE WEIGHT OF WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED 7500KG. IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE MOTOR CAR H AD BEEN ACQUIRED BETWEEN 1.4.2001 TO 1.4.2002. THE WEIGHT O F THE CAR AS PER THE RC BOOK PLACED ON RECORD IS 2170KG AND THER EFORE, IT IS A LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE AS PER THE DEFINITION UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN USED IN THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMERCIAL VEHI CLE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN THE APPENDIX AND THE SAID D EFINITION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE VEHICLE SHOULD BE REGISTERED A S A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. THE BMW CAR PU RCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF COMMER CIAL VEHICLE AND HAD BEEN PURCHASED BETWEEN 1.4.2001 TO 1.4.2002 AND USED BEFORE 1.4.2002 IN THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT THUS SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION @ 50%. IN OUR VIEW IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION @ 50%. TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS SE T ASIDE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THUS, RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO ALLOW ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019 INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO.. VS. DCIT 11 THE DEPRECIATION @ 50%. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/12/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 23/12/2019. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- INDUSTRIAL SALES & MANUFACTURING CO. , JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 1168/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR