BABULAL MAHESHWARI & COMPANY, CHOMU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, Jaipur

ITA 369/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9477 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES 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. 369/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 BABULAL MAHESHWARI & COMPANY, HPCL PETROL PUMP, JAIPUR ROAD, CHOMU, JAIPUR-303702 CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABFB 8037 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (AD ON RECORD & DATE WAS NOTED) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/12/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/12/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/01/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 201 3-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D IN FACT BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON TANKER LORRY AMOUNTING TO RS.271285.00 CLAIMED U/S 32 BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT T HE ACTUAL USE OF THE SAID ASSET BY THE APPELLANT FIRM DURING THE YEA R FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS WITHOUT EXAMINING OR CONSIDERING TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF ITS ACTUAL USE, SHOWING WORK ORDER NUM BERS, TRANSACTIONS DONE, TANKER LORRY NUMBER AND INDUCTIO N OF TANKED LORRY BY HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT COMPANY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLY OF PETRO PRODUCT S, PRODUCED ITA 369/JP/2018_ BABULAL MAHESHWARI & CO. VS ITO 2 BEFORE THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE COURS E OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ACTUAL USE OF TANKER LORRY IN THE COU RSE OF BUSINESS BY ASSOCIATING ITS USE WITH GENERATION OF INCOME AND I TS ACCOUNTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM WHICH IS NOT A PRE CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION U /S 32 OF INCOME TAX ACT1961. 3. THE LD APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN FAILING TO ACCEPT TANKER LORRY INDUCTION LETTER DATED 01/02/20 13 ISSUED BY HPCL STATING THE FACT OF HIRE AGREEMENT HAVING ALRE ADY BEEN EXECUTED, AS EVIDENCE OF HIRE OF THE TANKER LORRY B Y THE COMPANY AND THEREBY NOT ACCEPTING THE USE OF TANKER LORRY B Y THE APPELLANT FIRM IN ITS NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. 4. THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT BY DISALLOWING DAY TO DAY RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPE NSES AMOUNTING TO RS.68301.00 INCURRED ON USE OF TANKER LORRY IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS HA VE BEEN TAKEN FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, NAMELY, ACTUAL US E OF TANKER LORRY IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTING OF INCOME GENERATED, IF ANY, FROM TANKER OPERATIONS. 5. THE APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEA L. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE RECOR D THAT SINCE BEGINNING, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARIN G AND THE CASE WAS BEING ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 23/10/2018, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJO URNMENT OF HEARING AND THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNE D FOR TODAY I.E. 18/12/2018. THE LD AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY ITA 369/JP/2018_ BABULAL MAHESHWARI & CO. VS ITO 3 NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING AS PER THE ENDORSEMENT ON THE ORDERSHEET. FURTHER THE NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 18/12/2018 WHICH WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 03/11/2018. DESPITE THE NEXT D ATE OF HEARING WAS DULY NOTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FO R HEARING NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING HAS BEEN FIL ED. ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURS UING THE PRESENT APPEAL. SO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., [1991] 38 ITD 320 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTED AND IS DISMI SSED IN LIMINE. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 TH DECEMBER, 2018 ITA 369/JP/2018_ BABULAL MAHESHWARI & CO. VS ITO 4 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- BABULAL MAHESHWARI & COMPANY, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-7(3),JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 369/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR