INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, AJMER V. SHRI SUKHPAL CHOUDHARY, AJMER

ITA 735/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1823 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 735/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), AJMER. CUKE VS. SUKHPAL CHOUDHARY, 230/39, VIGYAN NAGAR, ADARSH NAGAR, AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADQPC 7503 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUKHPAL CHOUDHARY (ASSESSEE HIMSELF) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/12/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/12/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2017 OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) AJMER HAS ERRED IN:- 1. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,67,668/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE @ 30% INSTEAD OF 15% ON TRU CKS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS INSTE AD OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE; ITA 735/JP/2017_ ITO VS SUKHPAL CHOUDHARY 2 1(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF R S. 1,67,668/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH REVENUE AUDIT OBJECT ION IN THIS CASE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CA SE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE 8(C) OF CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10/ 12/2015. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS APPLYING THE RATE OF DEPRECATION ON TRUCKS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE F OR TRANSPIRATION OF MILK OF SARAS DAIRY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 30% ON THESE TRUCKS, WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO 15%. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 20/10/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13. 4. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD SR.D.R. HAS FORCEFULL Y CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS USING THESE TRUCKS FOR HIS OWN BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECATION IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT TAKEN THESE TRUCKS ON HIRE. HE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN PERS ON, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTAT ION AND HAVING THREE TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MILK OF SARAS DAIRY FR OM THE PLANT TO VARIOUS MILK BOOTHS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING INC OME FROM THESE TRUCKS RUN ON HIRE BASIS. HE HAS SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA 735/JP/2017_ ITO VS SUKHPAL CHOUDHARY 3 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED T HE INCOME FROM HIRE CHARGES FOR RUNNING THE TRUCKS FOR THE TRANSPORTATI ON OF MILK. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE INCOME BY RUNNING THE TRUCK S ON HIRE BASIS THEN THE DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE ON THE VEHICLES AS PROV IDED IN APPENDIX 1(III) 3(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS @ 30%. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE TERM RUNNING THE VEHICLE ON HIRE BASIS AND THEREFORE, DENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THAT BASIS, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT TO THE RATES PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID APPENDIX OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING INCOME FROM RUNNING THE TRUCKS ON HIRE, WHIC H IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGAL ITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME IS UPH ELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/12/2017. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 19 TH DECEMBER, 2017 ITA 735/JP/2017_ ITO VS SUKHPAL CHOUDHARY 4 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI SUKHPAL CHOUDHARY, AJMER. 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. 735/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR