The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda V. M/s Taj Travels Pvt. Ltd., Bathinda

ITA 426/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7835 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR LD
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 425, 426 & 427(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DY. CIT, BATHINDA. VS. M/S. TAJ TRAVELS PVT. LTD. F-77, 1 ST FLOOR, CIVIL LINE, BATHINDA. PAN: AABCT-5108J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. ASHWANI KUMAR (LD. CA) DATE OF HEARING:17.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 23.08.2017 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY: THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPE ALS PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 20 12-13 BY FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21 ST JUNE, 2016, PASSED IN APPEALS NO.300,302 & 303-IT/CIT(A)/BTI/15-16 BY THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA. 2. IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE SAME AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE AND BREVITY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.425(ASR)/201 6 HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR CONSIDERATION AND RESULT OF THE SAME SHOULD A LSO BE APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER APPEALS NO.426 & 427(ASR)/2016. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.425(ASR)/2016 ARE RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THER E IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRING OUT THE VEHICLE FOR A SPECIFIED PERI OD & FOR A CONSIDERATION AND LETTING THE PASSENGER TRAVEL IN A VEHICLE ON PAYMENT OF CHARGES IGNORING THAT A PASSENGER TRAVELLING IN A BUS PURCHASES ONLY A RIGHT TO TRAVEL BETWEEN THE FIXED POINTS AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TRANSPORTER WHEREAS IN CASE OF HI RING OUT A VEHICLE, ONE PERSON GRANTS TO ANOTHER THE ENJOYMENT OF THING S DURING A CERTAIN TIME FOR A STIPULATED COMPENSATION WITHOUT INFERENC E OF THE OWNER. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @ 30% EVEN THOUGH THE BUSES W ERE BEING USED FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS ENT ITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @15% AS PER PARA III OF APPENDIX I OF RULE 5 OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING BUSES ACROSS VARIOUS ROUTES THROUGH OUT THE STATE OF PUNJAB AS WELL AS OUTSIDE BY WAY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTS, AND ON ITS BUSES, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIATION @ 30%. HOWEVER, THE AO HEL D THAT SINCE THE BUSES WERE USED FOR THE ASSESSEES COMPANY OWN TRANSPORT BUSINESS AND NOT FOR HIRE, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED FOR HIGHE R RATE ON DEPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION @ 15% CAN ONLY BE ADMISSIBLE AND THERE FORE, THE EXCESS CLAIM ON DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE RETURN INCOMES FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH RESULTED INT O FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT AO HAD ARBITRARILY RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON BUSES @ 15% INSTEAD OF 30% WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 3 IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND IS REG ISTERED UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, WHICH CLARIFIES THE BUSES USED FOR THE TRANSPORTING AND CARRYING PASSENGERS, THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECI ATION AT 30% INSTEAD OF 15 % AND EVEN OTHERWISE DEFINITION OF (CONT RACT CARRIAGE) AND (STAGE CARRIAGE) AS PER SECTION 2(3) & 2(29) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1963 WAS EXTRACTED TO INFER THAT THE BUSES USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS WERE HIRED BY THE PASSENGERS, THUS , ENTITLING THE BUSES FOR A HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECATION. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS THE ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION @ 30% TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDIT ION OCCASIONED BY THE WITHDRAWAL OF 50% OF THE CLAIM OF DEP RECIATION IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. NOW, FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEALS WHICH ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THE L D. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRING OUT THE VEHICLE FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD & FOR A CONSIDERATION AND LETTING THE PASSENGER TRAVEL IN A VEH ICLE ON PAYMENT OF CHARGES IGNORING THAT A PASSENGER TRAVELLING IN A BU S PURCHASES ONLY A RIGHT TO TRAVEL BETWEEN THE FIXED POINTS AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TRANSPORTER WHEREAS IN CASE OF HIRING OUT A VEHICLE, ONE PERSON GRANTS TO ANOTHER THE ENJOYMENT OF THINGS DURING A CER TAIN TIME FOR A STIPULATED COMPENSATION WITHOUT INFERENCE OF THE OWNER . FURTHER, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATI ON @ 30% EVEN THOUGH THE BUSES WERE BEING USED FOR ITS OWN BUSINE SS BY THE ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 4 ASSESSEE AND IT WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @15% AS PER PARA III OF APPENDIX I OF RULE 5 OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE I NSTANT CASES ARE BEING COVERED BY THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATION BENCH , ITAT AMRITSAR ITSELF IN THE CASE OF M/S DABWALI TRANSPORT CO. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA REPORTED AT [2017] 163 ITD 579 (AMRITSAR TRIB.) FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FUNDAMENTALLY THE ISSUE AT HAND IS WHETHER THE BUSES USE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT CONSTITUTE USE OF BUSE S FOR HIRE OR NOT AS THE SCHEDULE FOR DEPRECIATION PROVIDES TWO DIFFE RENT RATES FOR THE SAME AND THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL FOR PRESCRIBING TWO DIFF ERENT RATES ON THE BASIS OF THE USE OF THE ASSET IS THAT WHEN THE BUSES WI LL BE USED FOR HIRE THEY WILL TEND TO WEAR DOWN QUICKLY AND THEREFO RE, THE RATE OF DEPRECATION IN THOSE CASES SHOULD BE HIGHER. FURTHER, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, ONE NEEDS T O EXPLORE THE MEANING OF THE WORD HIRE. FOLLOWING DEFINITIO NS WERE REVIEWED FROM DIFFERENT DICTIONARIES: OXFORD DICTIONARY OBTAINS THE TEMPORARY USE OF (SOMETHING) FOR AN AGREED PAYMENT. MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY DEFINES PAYMENT FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF SOMETHING CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY DEFINES HIRE AS TO PAY TO USE SOMETHING FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. FURTHER, THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DEFIN ITION OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE AND STAGE CARRIAGE. ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 5 FURTHER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT, A MADRAS BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SAROJINI TRANSPORTS (P) LTD. REPORTED AT (1986) 24 TTJ (MAD.) 303 AND ALSO ORDER PASSED BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA VIDE ORDER BEARING ITA NO.956/CHANDI/2007 DATED 17.01.2008 AS WELL IN JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BALAKRISHNA TRANSPORTS REPORTED AT [1998] 233 ITR 133 ANALYZED THE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE DEPRECATION @ HIGHER RATE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRES TO BE INTERFERED WITH BECAUSE THE SAME IS BASED ON LOGIC, REASONS AND JUDG MENTS DELIVERED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNAL AS WELL. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FORMED HIS OWN VIEWS : 'THAT BUSES ARE SEEN TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR ASSESSEE OWN BUSINESS AND NOT FOR HIRE. THERE IS NO HIRING CONTR ACT OR AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE ASSESS EE AND ANY OTHER PERSON, LEADING TO RECEIPTS VIS-A VIS THE PLYING OF THE SAME BUSES ON A HIRING BASIS. A CONTRACT OF HIR E IS DEFINED AS ONE WHEREBY ONE PERSON GRANTS TO ANOTHER, THE EN JOYMENT OF A THING OR THE USE OF A LABOUR AND INDUSTRY, EIT HER OF HIMSELF OR OF SERVANT DURING THE CERTAIN TIMES FOR A STIPULATED COMPENSATION. IN THIS SITUATION, ONCE THE TIME PERI OD OF HIRE AND COMPENSATION ARE STIPULATED, ENJOYMENT OF THE T HING ETC. IS LEFT TO DISCRETION OF PERSON TAKING THE THINGS O N HIRE. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO INFERENCE BY THE OWNER WHI CH JUDGED FORM THIS YARDSTICK, THE TERMS AND CONDITION S GOVERNING A PASSENGER TRAVELING BY A BUS IS ENTIREL Y DIFFERENT IN AS MUCH AS THE PASSENGER HAS NO DISCRETION WHATS OEVER BECAUSE THE BUS WILL FERRY PASSENGER BETWEEN FIXED POINTS, STOPS AT THE PREDETERMINED STATIONS WITHOUT CARRYIN G FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL PASSENGER AND WILL OPE RATE ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 6 DURING THE FIXED TIME SCHEDULE ONLY. THEREFORE, IT IS MISNOMER TO DESCRIBE THIS AS HIRING OF BUS BY A PASSENGER OR NUMBER OF PASSENGERS. IN FACT A PASSENGER TRAVELING BY A BUS PURCHASES ONLY A RIGHT TO TRAVEL BETWEEN THE FIXED POINTS AT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TRANSPORTER. AS OPP OSED TO THIS IF THE BUS IS HIRED BY A PERSON OR A GROUP OF PERSONS THEN THE SAME WILL PLY BETWEEN THE POINTS DETERMINED BY SUCH PERSONS AND THE TIMING OF THEIR CHOICE. THIS RIGHT TO RUN THE BUS AT CONVENIENCE OF THE PERSON HIRING IS MISSING WHEN A PERSON TRAVELS AS AN ORDINARY PASSENGER AS AGAINST THE PERSON HIRING ONE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING BUSES ON VARIOUS ROUTES ACROSS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OUTSIDE BY WAY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTS, AND ITS BUSES ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS. THE ADMINIS TRATIVE CONTROL OVER THE BUSES REMAINS ENTIRELY WITH THE AS SESSEE, OVER AND ABOVE OWNERSHIP, SO THAT THE ELEMENT OF HI RING IS ABSENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE BUSES ARE BEING PLIED FOR YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE IS ONLY ENTITL ED TO NORMAL DEPRECIATION I.E. 15% INSTEAD OF 30% AS CLAI MED. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY APPLYING HI S OWN MIND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT : ' THE A.O WAS ENTIRELY UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANTS BUSES WERE RUNNING ON HIRE AS THEY WE RE USED FOR THE APPELLANTS OWN BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT AND WERE T HEREFORE, ENTITLED FOR DEPRECATION @ 15% ONLY. THIS IS FALLAC IOUS VIEW WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. EVEN IF THE WORD HIRE IS RECKONED IN THE CONTEXT OF LEASE, AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO , YET NO QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE IS SEEN BETWEEN THE LEASE OF THE VEHICLE FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD FOR A CONSIDERATION AND LETTIN G THE VEHICLE ON HIRE FOR A SHORT DURATION ON PAYMENT OF HIRE CH ARGES. IN BOTH THE CASES, THERE IS ENTITLEMENT FOR HIRE RATE OF DE PRECIATION' . WE INDEPENDENTLY APPLIED OUR MIND AND REALIZED FR OM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE LOST SIGHT TO THE F ACTS THAT IF A PERSON MAY BE INDIVIDUAL OR IN GROUP GETS THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT FOR HIS TRAVELING PURPOSES THEN CERTAINLY MAY BE FOR SHORTER PE RIOD THERE IS AN IMPLIED CONTRACT OF HIRE AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BUSES STOP S AT DIFFERENT ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 7 FIXED POINTS AT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORTER BUT STILL THE PASSENGERS MAY BE INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY GETS THE RIGH T TO TRAVEL MAY BE FOR SHORTER PERIOD AND THAT RIGHT OF TRAVEL, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW CERTAINLY AMOUNTS TO 'HIRE' AS DEFINED UNDER MOTOR VEH ICLE ACT IN SEC. 2(3) AND 2(29) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1939. CONTRACT CARRIAGE MEANS A MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH CARRIES A PASSENGER OR PASSENGERS FOR HIRE OR REWARD UNDER A CONTRACT EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED FOR THE USE OF THE VEHICLE AS A WHOLE AT OR FOR A FIXED OR AGREED RATE OR SUM AND FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER WIT HOUT STOPPING TO PICK UP OR SET DOWN ALONG THE LINE OF ROUTE PASSENGERS N OT INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT AND INCLUDES A MOTOR CAB NOTWITHSTANDING T HAT THE PASSENGERS MAY PAY SEPARATE FARES. FURTHER STAGE CARRIAGE IS DEFINED IN SEC.2(29) OF T HE M.V. ACT AS UNDER: STAGE CARRIAGE MEANS A MOTOR VEHICLE CARRYING OR ADA PTED TO CARRY MORE THAN SIX PERSONS EXCLUDING THE DRIVER WHICH CARRIES P ASSENGERS FOR HIRE OR REWARD AT SEPARATE FARES PAID BY OR FOR INDIVIDUAL PASSENGERS, EITHER FOR THE WHOLE JOURNEY OR FOR STAGE OF THE JOU RNEY. AS IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE BUSES ARE REGISTERED UNDER TH E MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1939 AS STAGE CARRIAGE OR CONTRACT CARRIA GE AND EVEN OTHER WISE THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN TH E CASE OF BALKRISHNA TRANSPORTS REPORTED AT [1998] ITR 133 WHILE DEALING THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AS IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS PLEASED TO HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN TRANSPORT ACTIVITY. THE TRANSPORT ACTIVITY WAS A RE GARDS PLYING OF TRANSPORT BUSES CARRYING PASSENGERS ON DIFFERENT RO UTES DETERMINED BY THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES. THE PASSEN GERS WHO ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 8 TRAVEL IN SUCH BUSES TRAVEL ON HIRE. THIS WOULD OBV IOUSLY MEAN THAT THE BUSES IN REGARD TO WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE NECESSARY CONTEX T OF THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION THAT THE BUSES WERE RUNNING ON HIRE. IT MAY BE THAT IN A GIV EN SITUATION IT MUST BE AN INDIVIDUAL, IN ANOTHER SITUATION A GR OUP OR AT DIFFERENT SITUATION IT MAY BE A MARRIAGE PARTY. THE SITUATION WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. WHEN VEHICLE IN REGA RD TO WHICH DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED, DO NOT RUN OTHERWISE THAN FOR HIRE, OBVIOUSLY, THE SITUATION WOULD BE GOVERNED BY ITEM. E(1A), OF THE RULES AND HENCE, ENTITLED, TO HIGHER DEPRECI ATION OF 40% ON ITS BUSES. FURTHER, THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH (A) IN THE CASE O F PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA VIDE ORDER BEARING ITA NO.956/CHANDI/2007 DATED 17.01.2008 WAS PLEASED T O HELD THAT THE BUSES PLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIRE AND FO R THE BUSES USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE, RATE OF DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED IS 40%. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION @ 40% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ITAT MADRAS BENCH A IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. S AROJNI TRANSPORTS (P) LTD. REPORTED AT (1986) 24 TTJ (MAD.) 303, WHIL E DEALING WITH THE SAME ISSUE ' CONSIDERED THE SEC.2(25) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 AND SUMMARIZED THAT BUSES WHICH ARE PLYING BETWEEN DIFFERENT POINTS AND WHICH CARRY PASSENGERS ARE PUBLIC SERVIC E VEHICLES AND, THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION THEY CAR RY PASSENGERS FOR HIRE OR REWARD AND INCLUDES A MOTOR CAB, CONTR ACT CARRIAGE AND STAGE CARRIAGE. FURTHER WHEN AN ASSESSE RUN MOTOR BUSES ON SEVERAL ROUTES AND RECEIVED AMOUNTS BY WAY OF COLLECTION RE GULARLY, IT CLEARLY TANTAMOUNT TO THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING BUSES ON HIRE. IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT UNLESS A SINGLE PERSON TOOK AN ENTIRE BUS ON HIRE IT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO THE BUSINESS OF RUNN ING BUSES ON HIRE MERELY BECAUSE SEPARATE FARES HAPPEN TO BE COL LECTED FROM DIFFERENT PASSENGERS. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT 40% ON THE BUSES IN QUESTION. ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 9 THE CO-ORDINATION BENCH OF ITAT, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF M/S DABWALI TRANSPORT CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE HIGHER LEVEL I.E., 30%. IN OVER ALL CONSIDERATION OF THE 'DEFINITION' OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 AS WELL AS PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMENT AND SUBMI SSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO HOLD THAT P UBLIC TRANSPORT CARRIES THE PASSENGER MAY BE FOR ONE STOP OR MORE THAN THAT MAY BE FOR SMALLER WHICH CAN BE LIMITED OR EVEN OTHERWISE CERTAINLY THERE IS IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN PASSENGER AND THE BUSES OWNER FOR 'HIRE' AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PASSENGER INDIVIDUALLY OR PASSENGERS JOINTLY DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTRACT WITH THE BUS OWNER WHILE CARRYING ON JOURNEY, HENCE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REVEN UE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT SOUND GOOD TO THE EXTENT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRING OUT THE V EHICLE FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD & FOR A CONSIDERATION AND LETTING THE PASSENGER TRAVEL IN A VEHICLE ON PAYMENT OF CHARGES IGNORING THAT A PASSENGER TRAVELI NG IN A BUS PURCHASES ONLY RIGHT TO TRAVEL BETWEEN FIXED POINTS AS P ER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TRANSPORTER. HENCE, THE APPEALS LACK THE MERITS AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHO LD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE AFORESAID APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.0 8.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:23.08.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NOS.425 TO 427(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 10 (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER