The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada V. M/s Maruthi Transports, Vijayawada

ITA 323/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0592 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBRATA SARKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH: VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.267/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 MARUTHI TRANSPORTS, VIJAYAWADA VS. CIT VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AAFFM 6825 Q I.T.A. NO.322/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1) VIJAYAWADA VS. MARUTHI TRANSPORTS, VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAFFM 6825 Q I.T.A. NO.323/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1) VIJAYAWADA VS. MARUTHI TRANSPORTS, VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAFFM 6825 Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR, DR O R D E R PER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2009 P ASSED BY LD. CIT, VIJAYAWADA. THE OTHER TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATE T O THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005- 06 AND 2006-07 AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), 2 VIJAYAWADA. THE ISSUE AGITATED IN THESE THREE APPE ALS IS IDENTICAL IN NATURE. HENCE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOS ED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE THREE A PPEALS IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 40 % PRESCRIBED FOR MOTOR LORRIES. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED I N BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATES ON TWO TYPES OF VEHICL ES NAMED AS REACH STACKER AND MOBILE CRANE. THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. HENCE THE LEARNED CIT, IN THE REVISION PROCEED INGS, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LEAR NED. CIT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, HAVING BEEN DELETED BY LEARNED CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE INSTRUCTION NO.617 DATED 13- 09-1973 AND INSTRUCTION NO.1641 ISSUED BY THE CBDT TO CONTEND THAT THE TWO TYPES OF VEHICLES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., THE REACH STACKER AND MOBILE CRANE BEING USED FOR LIFTING OF WEIGHTS, ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATES. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED PHOTO COPIES OF THE SAID VEHICLES. HOWEVER, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH TH E HELP OF TECHNICAL PERSONNEL. 5. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION OF THE ISSU E IN THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSE AND USAGE OF THE VEHICLES, TECHNICALITIES OF VEHICL ES ETC. WE ARE ATTACHING HEREWITH THE PHOTO COPIES OF THE TWO VEHICLES AS AN NEXURE TO THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN THE 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND RESTORE TH E MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. SO FA R AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS CONCERNED, THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT STATED ABOVE. 6. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WAS AGITATED IS WHETHER T HE DEPRECIATION COULD BE DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS HIGH COURT THAT THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRAT ION OF VEHICLES UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR DENYING DE PRECIATION. IN THIS CONNECTION, REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW: I) CIT VS. SALKIA TRANSPORT ASSOCIATES (1983) 143 ITR3 9 (CAL) II) CIT VS. BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD., (2002) 257 ITR 88 (DEL) III) ANIL BULK CARRIERS (P) LTD., VS. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 625 (ALL) 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 22/07/2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE : 22 ND JULY, 2010. A COPY OF THIS ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 01 MARUTI TRANSPORTS D.NO.26-13-37,SANYASIRAJU ST. GANDHINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-3 02 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA 03 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA 04 THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 05 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 06 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM