MEHTA EQUITIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 570/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3055 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARJU GARODIA
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELKANTH KANDELWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.570 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) MEHTA EQUITIES LTD 612, 6 TH FLOOR, ARUN CHAMBERS TARDEO, MUMBAI-34 VS THE ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI PAN : AAACR4143C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI NEELKANTH KANDELWAL RESPONDENT BY ARJU GARODIA DATE OF HEARING : 08-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 -09-2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER CALLED CIT(A)] DT 01-09- 2014 PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO U/S 143(3) DT 22-03-2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 8 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 4(2) (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER) IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION RS 5 ,01 ,924 ON MOTOR CARS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID CARS ARE REGISTERE D IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTORS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT- COMPANY AND HENCE, THE APPELLANTS ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE MOT OR CARS. 2 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAV E CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE MOTOR CARS ARE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTORS INASMUC H AS THE APPELLANTS, HAVING PAID FOR THE COST OF THE SAID VE HICLES ARE OWNERS OF THE VEHICLES WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANTS AND HENCE, THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS REQU IRED TO BE DELETED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND ALSO, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL IS INDEPENDENT OF A ND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ORIGINAL GROUND OF APPEAL - THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 8 (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 4(2) (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER) IN DISALLOWING CAR INSURANCE RS 53,240 BEING, 50% OF 1,06,479, INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN RS 81,278 BE ING 50% OF 1,62,556 AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES RS 3,73,33 1 ON MOTOR CARS O N THE GROUND THAT THE SAID CARS ARE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF TH E DIRECTORS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT-COMPANY AND HENCE, THE APPELLANTS ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE MOTOR CARS. THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAV E CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE MOTOR CARS ARE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTORS INASMUC H AS THE APPELLANTS, HAVING PAID FOR THE COST OF THE SAID VE HICLES ARE OWNERS OF THE VEHICLES WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANTS AND HENCE, THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS REQU IRED TO BE DELETED. 2.1. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO ADMISSIONS OF THE ADDITIONA L GROUND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND WAS OMITTED TO BE RAISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO INADVERTENTLY AND NO FRESH FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO AD JUDICATE THIS GROUND. IT WAS NOTED BY US THE ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE DEC IDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL HELD ON RECORDS AND THEREFORE AFTER HEARIN G BOTH THE PARTIES, IT WAS ADMITTED. 3 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 3. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE IS DELAY IN FILING OF A PPEAL BY 43 DAYS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THERE HAS BEEN IN ADVERTENT DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE PETITION FO R SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL WHICH IS DULY SUPPORTED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAPPENED INADVERTENTLY. THE AFFIDAV IT FILED BY THE SAID ACCOUNTANT READS AS FOLLOWS:- I,VIKRAM KABRA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT 4 /002, GAURAV CITY, MIRA ROAD (E)-MUMBAI 401107 , DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS UNDER: 1. THAT I AM A SENIOR ACCOUNTANT AT MEHTA EQUITIES LTD . 2. I LOOK AFTER THE ACCOUNTS, INCOME-TAX AND OTHER MAT TERS RELATED TO FINANCE OF THE SAID COMPANY. 3. I RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) - 8, DATED 01.09.2014 IN THE CASE OF MEHT A EQUITIES LIMITED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 16TH OCTOBER, 2014 AND KEPT THEM SEPARATELY IN MY DRAWER. I ALSO KEPT OTHE R PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS TOGETHER WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER. AS A P RACTICE, ALL INCOME-TAX RELATED PAPERS/ DOCUMENTS ARE SENT TO ME SSRS P. D. SARAF & CO, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR FURTHER ACTIO N BUT SOMEHOW INADVERTENTLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS) ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 REM AINED IN THE DRAWER; AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE SAID ORDER COULD N OT BE GIVEN TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN TIME FOR FILING THE AP PEAL. THE SAID ORDER WAS LATER NOTICED AND IMMEDIATELY SENT TO THE M ON 14TH JANUARY, 2015. I FURTHER STATE THAT WHATEVER IS STATED HEREINABOVE IS TRUE TO MY OWN KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND I BELIEVE THE SAME TO BE T RUE. 4. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION T O FILE THE APPEAL BELATEDLY. THE DELAY OCCURRED ON THE PART OF THE A CCOUNTANT INADVERTENTLY. IT WAS BEYOND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE R EASONS GIVEN ARE DULY EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. 4 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 5. LD. DR COULD NOT REBUT THE FACTS NARRATED BEFORE US THAT LED TO THE DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL. NO SERIOUS OBJECTION WAS MA DE BY HER IN CONDONING THE DELAY. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL IS CONDONED. 6. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL GROUND . IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING FULLY THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MOTOR CAR MAINTENANCE, CAR INSURANCE AND INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN. 7. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DISALLOWED 50% OF T HE MOTOR RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND 100% OF CAR INSURANCE AND INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. BUT, T HE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE ON MOTOR CAR EXPENSES @50% AS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO, BUT BROUGHT DOWN THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CAR INS URANCE AND INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN TO 50% TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE AT PAR WITH THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT G IVE ANY PROPER REASONING AS TO WHY THIS 50% DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND CONTENTED TH AT IT IS A CASE OF A COMPANY, COMPLETE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND OF P ERSONAL USER AND, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE FULLY DELETED. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE A DMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAIRLY BROUGHT DOWN THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% WHICH SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNI SHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THERE ARE NO BASIS TO DISALLOW 50% OF THE EXPENSE INCURRED ON THE MOTOR CAR WHICH WAS USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTHING HAS BEEN DETECTED TO SHOW HE USE R OF THE MOTOR CAR FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. NO REASONING WHATSOEVER HAS BEE N GIVEN BY THE AO AS TO WHY THESE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED FULLY. LD . CIT(A) ALSO HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER REASONING TO SUSTAIN 50% DISALLOWANCE OF MOT OR CAR EXPENSES. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT IT IS A CASE OF A COMPANY WHICH IS A SEPARATE LEGAL JURISTIC PERSON. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUN T OF ALLEGED PERSONAL USER. IT WAS SHOWN THAT COMPLETE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WE RE SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY EITHE R OF THE AUTHORITIES TO SHOW ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF MOTOR CAR, CAR INSURANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON CAR LOAN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. UNDER THESE CIR CUMSTANCES, WE FIND THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS UNJUSTIFIED IN M AKING THE DISALLOWANCES ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIR ECTED TO FULLY ALLOW THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, CAR INSURANCE AND INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ADDITIONAL GROUND IS HEREBY AL LOWED. 10. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP ORIGINAL GROUND. IN THIS GROU ND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISALL OWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,01,924 ON MOTOR CARS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SA ID CARS WERE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 11. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE AO D ISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON THE MOTOR CAR ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND , THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION 6 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHEREIN IT WAS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL ALONG WITH REQUISITE EVIDE NCES THAT ACTUALLY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS THE OWNER OF THE CAR BUT DUE TO CERTAIN REASONS IT WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR. THE ASSESSE E HAD PAID REQUISITE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF THE CAR AND IT WAS SHOWN IN ITS BAL ANCE-SHEET AS SUCH. THE ASSESSEE WAS ITS OWNER AND, THEREFORE, ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO HAD HIMSELF ALLOWED 50% OF THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES WHICH INDICATED THAT CARS WERE USED FOR TH E PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PASSED A RESOLUTION TO CLEAR ANY DOUBT WITH REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISION S OF THE COMPANIES ACT. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEME NTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN IF THE ASSET IS NOT REGISTERE D IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IF THE ASSESSEE IS DE-FACTO OWNER OF THE ASSET, THEN THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE:- 1. MYSORE MINERALS (1999) 106 TAXMAN 166 (SC) 2. NAVDURGA TRANSPORT CO 149 CTR 219 3. DILIP SINGHSARDARSINGH BAGGA 201 ITR 995 4. ELECTRO FERRO ALLOYS LTD 25 TAXMANN.COM 458 (AH D) 5. ARAVALI FINLEASE LTD 341 ITR 383 (GUJ) 6. BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD 257 ITR 88 (DEL) 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID LEGAL POSITION AND FACTS OF THE CASE, LD COUNSEL REQUESTED FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 14. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE C AR WAS PURCHASED IN EARLIER YEAR AND THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR. SINCE THE CAR HAS ALREADY ENTERED INTO 7 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 THE BLOCK OF ASSETS IN A.Y. 2009-10 AND DEPRECIATIO N ON THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISTURBED NOW IN A.Y. 2010-11. 15. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE IS NOT TH E LEGAL OWNER OF THE CAR AS THE SAME IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECT OR, IT CANNOT BE GRANTED BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TH E DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EDWISE CONSULTANTS P VT LTD (A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO.391/MUM/2011 ORDER DATED 19-04-2013). 16. IN REPLY, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF EDWISE CONSULTANTS PVT LTD, THE TRIBUNAL (VIDE ITS ORDER DT 14-10-2015 FOR A.YS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 IN ITA NOS 4376/MUM/2011, 4121/MUM/2014 AND 594/MUM/2013) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AGAIN IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAI D JUDGMENTS OF HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARAVALI FINLEASE LTD (SUPRA) AND BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD (DEL) (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IF CAR WAS DE- FACTO OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EVEN IF IT WAS REGIS TERED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR. THUS HE REQUESTED THAT AS PER LATEST POSITION OF LAW, DEPRECIATION CLAIM IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH HE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND COPIES OF JUDGMENTS PLACED BEFORE US AND SUBMISSION S MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT CAR H AS ACTUALLY BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM THE FUNDS OF THE COMPANY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE COMPANY IN ITS BALANCE-SHEET. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT A RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE COMPANY WHEREIN IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THOUGH THE CAR, FOR SOME REASONS, HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR, BUT IT BELONGS TO THE COMPANY AND IS OWNED BY THE COMPANY. THE DI RECTOR HAS NEVER CLAIMED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR. THE COMPANY HAS UNDISPUT ED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR. BOTH THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION ARE CL EAR ABOUT THIS FACTUAL AND 8 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 LEGAL POSITION. THERE IS NO CONFUSION ON THAT. UN DER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY SAID THAT THE COMPANY IS THE DE-FACTO OWNER OF THE CAR. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE CAR HAS BEEN ACTUALLY USED BY THE COMPANY FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES. SIMILAR POSITION CAME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARAVALI FINLEASE LTD (SUPRA) W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE VEHICLE THOUGH REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECT OR OF THE COMPANY, BUT IF ENTIRE FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLES HAD GONE FROM THE COFFERS OF THE COMPANY AND THE SAME WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINE SS OF THE COMPANY, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO DE PRECIATION ON THE SAID VEHICLE. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED T O DEPRECIATION ON CAR WHICH WAS OWNED BY IT BUT NOT REGISTERED IN ITS NAME. TH E LAW IN THIS REGARD WAS ALSO CLARIFIED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAY BACK IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD VS CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC). IT IS FURTHER NOTICED BY US THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN ITS LATER JUDGMENT PASS ED IN THE CASE OF EDWISE CONSULTANTS PVT LTD (SUPRA) CLARIFIED THE CORRECT L EGAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD AND FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS OF HIGH COURTS H ELD THAT DEPRECIATION WILL BE ALLOWABLE IN SUCH A SITUATION. 18. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE CAR WAS PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2009-10, WHEREI N DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED BY THE AO. THUS, THE S AID CAR HAD ENTERED INTO BLOCK OF ASSETS IN A.Y. 2009-10. ONCE AN ASSET IS ENTERED INTO THE BLOCK OF ASSET AND IS BROUGHT FORWARD AS PART OF OPENING WDV, THER E ARISES NO QUESTION FOR NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON THE OPENING AMOUNT OF WDV OF THE CAR, SO LONG AS CONTINUES TO BE USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS HIMSELF ALLOWED MOTOR CAR EXP ENSES ON THE SAME CAR 9 I.T.A. NO.570/MUM/2015 @50%. THUS, AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE USER OF TH E CAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. UNDER THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, CONTRADICTORY DECISION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. THUS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSIT ION AND PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT DEPRECIATI ON IS ALLOWABLE ON THE CAR AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. THUS, THE IMPUGNED GROUND IS ALLOWED. 19. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS 21 ST _DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE , J -BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES