ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. P LTD., Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 321/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7804 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENA JEEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: V K DAT A
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. ME ENA) ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAN : AABCA 4988 P M/S. ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. THE ITO ROAD NO. 2, AGARWAL BHAWAN WARD- 1(2) ALWAR ALWAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL & SHRI V.K.DAT A DEPARTMENT BY: MS. NEENA JEEPH DATE OF HEARING: 15-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12-11-2014 ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 19-02-2013 WHEREIN THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL. 1.0 THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 6,59,543/- ON THE TRUCK BLOCK, WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND ASSES SEE COMPANY IS THE OWNER OF THESE TRUCKS AND HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE LATEST SUPREME C OURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF I.C.D.S. LTD. VS. CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC) MORE SO WHEN THE AO HAS NOT PUT ANY QUESTION MARK ON THE ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 2 OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND USE FOR THE P URPOSE OF THE BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE BASIC CONDITIONS FOR C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION VIZ. PUT TO USE AND THE OWNERSHIP STAN DS SATISFIED AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEPREC IATION OF RS. 659,43/-. 2.0 THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING O N PAGE NUMBER 7 IN FIRST PARA THAT THE INCOME FROM HIRE CHARES SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS N OTHING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INASMUCH AS THIS WAS NOT BE ISSUE BEFORE LD. LD. CIT(A), ALWAR AND ITAT , BENCH JAIPUR , JAIPUR HAS SENT BACK THE FILE TO THE OFFICE OF HON' BLE LD. CIT(A) , ALWAR ONLY FOR ALLOWING OR OTHERWISE OF THE DEPRE CIATION AND NOT THE HEAD OF INCOME WHERE UNDER THE LEASE INCOME IS TO BE TAXED. HERE THE HON'BLE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS EXCE EDED HIS JURISDICTION WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE SET ASIDE PROC EEDINGS. WHILE GIVING THE ABOVE SAID FINDING, THE HON'BLE LD. CIT (A), ALWAR HAS NOT ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COM PANY TO DEFEND ITS CASE. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONSEQUENT TO ITAT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER DATED 1 9-08-2011 OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. AGAINST THE ORDER OF ID. CIT (A) DISMISSING TH E GROUND IN RESPECT TO DEPRECIATION AND JOSS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. IN RESPECT TO LOSS CLAIMED, THE ISSUE HAS NOT BE EN PRESSED BY THE LD.A/R AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HOWEVER, REGARDI NG DEPRECIATION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ID. CIT (A)HAS ACCEPTED RE NTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LEASED OUT TRUCKS, THEREFORE, DEPRECIATI ON SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MATTER NEEDS RE-VER IFICATION AT THE END OF ID. CIT (A). IN PARA 4.3 THE ID. CIT (A) HAS D ISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION IN DETAIL AND BY GIVING A F INDING THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF LEASE' MONEY SHOWN AND, THEREFORE,-HE REJECTED THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, IN PARA 5.3 WHILE DISPOSING THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF LEASE, THE ID. CI T (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 3 ' THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS CONFIRMED BUT AO COMPUTED THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 44AE IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN THE RENTAL INCOME ALREADY IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WILL BE DOUBLE TAXATION IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE '. THE ID. COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS OBSERVATION OF ID. CIT (A). THEREFORE, WE FEEL THAT MATTER SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO ID. CIT (A) TO CONSIDER THE ASPECT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ONCE AGAIN. THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT DEPRECIATION ON THESE TWO TRUCKS WAS CLAIMED IN EARLIER' YEAR ALSO AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT AS PER ORDER OF ID. CIT (A) ENT IRE INCOME SHOWN BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LEASING OUT OF TRUCKS HAS AL SO BEEN ACCEPTED, THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ALL T HESE ASPECTS AS STATED ABOVE, NEEDS RE-VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ID. CIT (A) TO CONSIDER AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDE R ACCORDINGLY. 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) IN NEW PROCEEDING HOWEVER, DISAL LOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND FURTHER CHANGED THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS TO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCE EDINGS AND THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT DATED 19-08-2011. THE IS SUE WHICH HAS BEEN SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THIS OFFICE IS TO CON SIDER THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON TWO TRUCKS I.E. RJ-02-G 7434 AND RJ 02-G-7373 VEHICLE NO. RJ-02-G 7434 WAS PURCHASED IN F.Y.2002 IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY AND IT WAS REGISTERED ON 16.03.2 002 IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED USER O F THIS VEHICLE IN AY 2003-04 ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16.0 3.2002 WITH SUBE SINGH VILLAGE MAJARI KALA TEHSIL BEHROR. THIS AGREEMENT WAS FOUND TO BE NOT VERIFIABLE BY THE AO SINCE NEITHER THE APPELLANT PRODUCED THIS PERSON NOR THE SAID PERSON ATTENDED I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 131. THUS, THE USER OF THIS TRUCK FOR THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT IS NOT PROVED. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION FOR FIRST TIME ON THIS TRUCK IN AY 2003-04 AND THE OPEN ING WDV OF THIS TRUCK HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 8,45,950/- SIMILARLY, VEHICLE NO. RJ-02-G 7373 HAS BEEN PURCHA SED IN SEPTEMBER 2002 AND HAS BEEN REGISTERED ON 09.09.200 2 IN THE NAME OF ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 4 THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED US ER OF THIS VEHICLE IN AY 2003-04 ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 09.09.2002 WITH SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV, VILLAGE MAJAR I KALA, TEHSIL BEHROR. THIS AGREEMENT WAS FOUND TO BE NOT VERIFIAB LE BY THE AO SINCE NEITHER THE APPELLANT PRODUCED THIS PERSON NOR THE SAID PERSON ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 131. THUS, THE USER OF THIS TRUCK FOR THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT IS NOT PROVED. THE APPELL ANT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION FOR FIRST TIME ON THIS TRUCK IN AY 200 3-04 AND THE OPENING WDV OF THIS TRUCK HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 7,99,991/-. FROM ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT DEPRECI ATION ON THESE TWO TRUCKS WAS CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO A ND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM THAT THE INCOME FROM LEASE OUT OF TRUCKS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOW ED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LE ASE AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE FIVE TRUCKS INCLUDING THE T WO TRUCKS MENTIONED ABOVE WERE FOUND TO BE UNVERIFIABLE AND N ON-GENUINE. THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT HELD THAT THE ALL THE LEA SE TRANSACTIONS WERE MANAGED TO MINIMIZE THE TAX LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING VEHICLES AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A). THIS FINDING HA S BECOME FINAL SINCE THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT WAS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS WITH RE SPECT TO ABOVE SAID TWO VEHICLES WERE NOT GENUINE AND NOT PR OVED THEN THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THE USER OF THESE VEHICL ES FOR THE BUSINESS OF HIRING, AS CLAIMED BY -THE APPELLANT, REMAINS UN PROVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INCOME FROM HIRE CHARGES SHOWN B Y THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOTHING BUT IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY WHEN THE TWO FACTS I.E. OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLE AND THE USE OF VEHI CLE FOR BUSINESS IS ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE 7373 CANNOT BE A LLOWED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, SINCE THE CLAIM OF USER OF VEHICLE FOR ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 5 BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE BALANCE AMOU NT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1167/- HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 6,59,543/- (CORRECT AMOUNT BEIN G 6,58,378/-) WITH RESPECT TO VEHICLES NOS. RJ-02-G 7434 AND RJ-0 2-G 7373 IS DISMISSED. 2.3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 2.4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE TRUCKS IN QUESTION WERE PLIED FOR ITS TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THE AO ONLY HELD THAT INCOME FROM LEASE OF TWO TRUCKS WAS NOT PROPER AND THE INCOME THERE WAS TAKEN AS BUSINESS I NCOME U/S 44AE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. 11. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE IT IS HE LD THAT ALLEGED LEASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS OF THE VEHICLES A RE ONLY MAKE BELIEVE STORY OF THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID THE CORRECT PAYMENT OF TAX AND IT ACTUALLY HAS EARNED SUBSTANTIAL INCOME FROM PLYING OF TRUCKS. ALL THE TRUCKS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R PLYING THEM ON HIRE AND NONE OF THESE WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR . SINCE THE CORRECT DETAILS OF INCOME OF PLYING OF THESE TRUCKS ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE, I ESTIMATE NET INCOME OF THE TRUCKS BY A PPLYING DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE I.T. ACT AS UNDER:- TRUCK NO. NO. OF MONTH PLIED INCOME PER MONTH AS PER SECTION 44AE TOTAL INCOME OF THE TRUCK RJ-02G-6749 12 RS.3500/- RS.42,000/- RJ-02G-6760 12 RS.3500/- RS.42,000/- RJ-02G-6582 12 RS.3500/- RS.42,000/- RJ-02G-7373 07 RS.3500/- RS.24,500/- RJ-02G-7434 12 RS.3500/- RS.42,000/- TOTAL RS. 1,92,500/- ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 6 SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAS TRIED TO EVADE CORRECT PAYMENT OF TA X, IT IS LIABLE FOR PENAL ACTION U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE I.T. ACT. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING SEPARATELY INITIATED. 12. ON VERIFICATION OF CLAUSE 27(B) OF THE AUDITORS REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CD REGARDING PAYMENT OF TDS MADE U/S 192 OF THE I.T. ACT , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LATE DE POSITED THE AMOUNT OF TAX AND THEREFORE, IT IS LIABLE FOR INTER EST U/S 201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT. SUCH INTEREST IS CALCULATED AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS. PARTICULARS OF HEAD AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED DUE DATE FOR REMITTANCE TO GOVT. DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT PERIOD OF DELAY AMOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) SALARY U/S 192 RS. 27,000 7-10-02 1-1-2003 84 DAYS RS. 932 -DO- RS. 27,000 21-03-03 29-03-03 8 DAYS RS. 89 -DO- RS. 10,575 7-04-03 23-06-03 77 DAYS RS. 335 WITH THE ABOVE REMAKES INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS A/C RS. 41,671 /- ADD:- DONATION RS. 1,502/- DEPRECIATION CONSIDERED SEPARATELY RS. 9,66,743/ - LOSS ON SALE OF TRUCKS-HELD NOT ALLOWABLE RS. 1,9 4,008/- TOTAL RS. 12,03,924/- LESS: TRUCK INCOME SHOWN IN P&L A/C CONSIDERED SEPARATELY RS. 2,28,000/- RS. 9,75,924/- ADD: TRUCK INCOME AS COMPUTED U/S 44AE ABOVE RS. 1,92,500/- RS. 11,68,524/- LESS: DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE ON ASSETS OTHER THAN TRUCKS RS. 1,167/- TOTAL INCOME RS. 11,67,257/- ROUNDED OFF U/S 288A RS. 11,67,260/- ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 7 THESE OBSERVATIONS AND COMPUTATION CLEARLY SHOWS TH AT ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM THESE TWO TRUCKS WAS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCO ME. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AND ITAT BY ABOVE OBSER VATIONS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE FOR A LIMITED PURPOSES TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. THERE IS NO DIRECTION IN THE ITAT ORDER TO CHANGE THE HEAD OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE I SSUE AGAIN HAS TRAVELED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ITAT ORDER. IT HAS BEEN HEL D THAT LEASE INCOME FROM HIRING OF THE TRUCKS WAS NOT GENUINE AND IT THE SHA LL BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DEPRECIATION IS DENIED. IN O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT SAME IS TAKEN AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT C HALLENGED THE HEAD OF INCOME. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TRUCK IS NOT DISPUTED ; TRUCK PLYING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DOUBTED BY AO ALBEIT TO BE NOT BY LEASE AS THE LEASE RENTAL AGREEMENTS ARE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE FACT REM AINS THAT TRUCKS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS TRANSPORT BUSINESS. TH E ASSESSEE'S OWNERSHIP IS NOT DISPUTED, SIMILARLY THE INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE AO AS BUSINESS INCOME U/S 44AE. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT TENABLE BY HOLDING INCOME FROM LEASE RENTALS OF THE TRUCK AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES. ONCE THE TRUCKS ARE HELD TO BE PLIED BY THE THEN IN THAT CASE THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE INCOME IS ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 8 HANDS OF THE LESSEES WHICH ALSO DEMONSTRATES THAT T HESE 2 TRUCKS WERE USED IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS. 2.5 THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ). 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DIRECTION FROM THE ITAT F OR THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF HEAD OF INCOME ON THIS ISSUE. WHAT WAS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ABOUT THE DEPRECIATION QUA THE TRU CK PLYING. THE DIRECTION IN QUESTION WAS SIMPLE TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF DEPREC IATION WHICH WAS DENIED BY AO BY ASSESSING THE INCOME U/S 44AE; LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SEC 44AE IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PREFER APPEAL B EFORE ITAT IN THE WAKE OF CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS MENT IONED IN PARA 8 OF THE ITAT ORDER. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S WITHOUT ANY ITAT DIRECTION OR JUSTIFICATION TO DO SO MORE SO WHEN TH IS ISSUE IS NEITHER APPEALED BY ASSESSEE. BESIDES IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT LEASE RENTAL INCOME IS ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE LESSEES. THE DEPRECIATION ON THE V ERY SAME TRUCKS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN PRECEDING YEARS ALSO AND BECOME PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TO HAVE ENTERED LEAS E OF THESE TRUCKS TO OTHER PARTIES IS HELD TO BE NOT PROPER AND WHICH IMPLIES THAT TRUCKS WERE UTILIZED ITA NO. 321/JP/2013 ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 9 BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SELF BUSINESS. THUS LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGO INGS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWABLE. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-11 -2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 12 TH NOV. 2014 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1 M/S. ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD. , ALW AR 2. THE ITO, WARD- 1 (2), ALWAR 3. THE LD. CIT(A) 4. THE LD. CIT BY ORDER 5.THE LD. DR 6.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO. 321/JP/2013) AR ITAT, JAIPUR