Sri.Mathew Abraham, Thiruvalla V. ACIt, Thiruvalla

ITA 92/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4596 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M ANIL KUMAR; SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE
• Assessee Lawyers: P VENUGOPAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN, AM I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI MATHEW ABRAHAM, THEKKUMMOOTTIL, VALLAMKULAM, THIRUVALLA. [PAN: ACUPT 1245L] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-R ESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.VENUGOPAL, CA REVENUE BY SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE, SR. DR & SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 06/06/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/08/2013 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 10-12-2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), TRIVANDRUM AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 05 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION REQUESTING THE BENCH TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ON THE REASONING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS SUFFERING FROM FEVER DURING THAT PERIOD. WE ALSO HEARD THE LD. DR ON THIS POINT. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE PETITION FILED, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARI NG. 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE URGED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETH ER THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DE NYING A HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE VEHICLES USED FOR TRANSPORTING ASSESSEES OWN G OODS. I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 2 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID ISSUE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A QUARRY, WHEREIN THE RO CK BOULDERS ARE BLASTED AND CRUSHED INTO PIECES BY USING STONE CRUSHERS, SCREENED AND T HEREAFTER THEY ARE LOADED INTO LORRY/TRACTOR FOR TRANSPORTING TO THE CUSTOMER PLAC ES. THE MAJOR CUSTOMER OF THE ASSESSEE IS INDIAN RAILWAYS AND INFERIOR QUALITY ME TALS ARE SOLD PUBLIC ALSO. THE ASSESSEE USES ITS OWN VEHICLES FOR TRANSPORTATION O F GOODS. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT A HIGHER RATE, I.E . @ 30% ON THE VEHICLES USED TO TRANSPORT THE METALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK TH E VIEW THAT THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO MOTOR BUSES, MOT OR LORRIES AND MOTOR TAXIES USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DREW SUPPORT FOR HIS VIEW FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD. (305 ITR 132). ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES TO 15%, I.E., THE NORMAL RATE APPLICABLE T O VEHICLES WHICH ARE NOT USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. THE ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. AGGRIEVED, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD. (REFERRED SUPRA) , DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE ABSENCE OF CERTAIN VITAL FACTS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR DE NOVO EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ABOVE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE:- WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER ITEM 2(II ) OF HEADING III OF THE APPENDIX I TO THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING OUT HIS TRUCK IN ADDITION TO HIS BUSINESS OF TRADING IN TIMBER. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF TIMBER. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. WE DO NOT HAVE THE COMPUTATION OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE US. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING OUT MOTOR LORRIES TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING OUT MOTOR LORRIES FOR RUNNING THEM TO EARN BUSINESS INC OME. I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 3 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED TRANS PORTATION CHARGES FOR EACH LOAD OF METAL SUPPLIED TO RAILWAYS. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS BY COLLECTING TR ANSPORT CHARGES AND ACCORDINGLY, CONTENDED THAT THESE VEHICLES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A HI GHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH OF CIRCULAR NO. 609 DATED 29/07/1991 ISSUED BY CBDT:- THEREFORE WHERE A TOUR OPERATOR OR TRAVEL AGENT U SES SUCH VEHICLES OWNED BY HIM, IN PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE TO URISTS, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON SUCH VEHICLES. THE LD A.R ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION REN DERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STANES TYRES AND RUBBER LTD (242 ITR 619), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE FOR M OTOR VEHICLES USED FOR HIRE OR REWARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD A.R CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, AS HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT ATION OF METAL AND WAS ALSO COLLECTING TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE H IGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY TO THOSE VEHICLES WHICH ARE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CAR RYING ON ANY BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE VEHICLES ON HIRE BUT USED THEM ONLY IN HIS BUSINESS FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS DEALT BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AC TIVITY OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE A SSESSEE AND HENCE THE FACT THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING TRANSPORT CHARGES DOES NOT H ELP HIM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OPERATING THE VEHICLES IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING T HEM ON HIRE, HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR A HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THOSE VEHICLES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE WORK ORDERS IS SUED BY THE RAILWAYS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING OF VEHICLES ON HIRE AND HENCE, NOT ENTITLED FOR A HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVAT IONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A): I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 4 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY, GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR SEEKING RELIEF ON THE ISSUE. AFTER A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, MY VIEWS ON THE MATTER W ITH REASONS THEREOF ARE AS GIVEN IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF A FEW WORK ORDERS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAYS WHERE THE NA TURE OF WORK HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS COLLECTION AND SUPPLY OF APPROVED QUALITY MACHINE CRUSHED TRACK BALLAST AS PER LATEST REVISED SPECIFICATION FROM OUTSIDE THE RAILW AY LIMIT AND STACKING FOR MEASUREMENTS AT BALLAST DEPOT IN WADAKANCHERI STATI ON YARD WITH ALL LEAD AND LIFTS, LOADING AND UNLOADING, CONVEYANCE FROM THE P LACE OF AVAILABILITY, CROSSING THE TRACK WHERE EVER REQUIRED ETC. COMPLETE USING C ONTRACTORS LABOUR, VEHICLE AND CONSUMABLES. (PAYMENT BY STACK MEASUREMENTS WIT HOUT ANY DEDUCTION FOR VOIDS) 9. THE WORK ORDER SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TO SUPPLY MATERIAL AND STOCK IT AT RAILWAY SITE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING METAL TO THE RAILWAYS AND PUBLIC. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATERIAL OWNED BY RAILWAYS WAS TRANSPORTED FROM ITS QUARRY TO THE RAILWAY BALLAST. THE DELIVERY OF GOODS TAKES PLACE AT THE BALLAST SITE OF RAILWAYS, THEREFORE AS PER SALE OF GOODS ACT ALSO THE SALE TA KES PLACE ONLY WHEN THE MATERIAL IS HANDED OVER TO THE RAILWAYS. IN FACT I T IS A CASE OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE MATERIAL OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT THE MAT ERIAL OWNED BY SOME ONE ELSE. THE VEHICLES ARE USED AS PER THE REQUIREMENT ASCERTAINED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. THE CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLES REMAINS WIT H THE APPELLANT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VEHICLES WERE GIVEN ON HIRE TO RAILWAYS OR PUBLIC. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE TRUE TEST IS THE USER OF TH E SAME IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OF TRANSPORTATION IS MISPLACED. WHAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IS THAT THE VEHICLES SHOULD BE USED IN THE BUS INESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE ASSESSEE I.E.. THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE SHOULD BE T RANSPORTATION. SINCE IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPO RTATION AND TRANSPORTATION OF METAL IS JUST INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF METAL TO RAILWAYS/PUBLIC, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT CORRECT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS NOTED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 2 6-11-2012, THE COUNCIL OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT NO VEHICLE WAS GIVEN ON HIRE TO ANY PARTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING OF VEHICLES ON HIRE. 8. ADMITTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING OF METALS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS USED HIS OWN VEHICLES F OR TRANSPORTING THE METALS MAINLY I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 5 TO RAILWAY YARD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE TR ANSPORTATION CHARGES ARE PAID SEPARATELY BY THE RAILWAYS AND HENCE THE VEHICLES S HOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RUN ON HIRE. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF M/S STANES TYRE AND RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD (REFERRED SUPRA). WE HAVE GONE THROUG H THE SAID DECISION AND NOTICE THAT THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THAT CASE WAS NOT FOUND DIS CUSSED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT APPEAR TO HAVE MAINLY DECIDED THAT THE VANS AND THREE WHEELERS USED AS GOODS VEHICLES ARE ENTITLED TO HIG HER DEPRECIATION IF THEY ARE USED FOR HIRE OR REWARD. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE SAID DECISION. IN THE CASE OF GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM (P) LTD , THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CLEAR TERMS HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- UNDER ITEM 2(II) OF HEADING III, THE HIGHER RATE O F DEPRECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE ON MOTOR TRUCKS USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. THEREFORE, THE USER OF THE SAME IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OF TRANSPO RTATION IS THE TEST..... IN OUR VIEW, THE ENTIRE APPROACH OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS ERRONEOUS WHEN HE HAS STATED THAT THE TRANSPORT ATION INCOME OF RS.12,50,639 BY WAY OF RUNNING THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ON HIRE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS AND ITS INCLUSION IN THE H EAD BUSINESS INCOME IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR VIEW, MERE INCLUSION OF RS.12,50,639/- IN THE TOTAL BUSINESS INCOME IS NOT THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR FOR DECIDING WHETHER TRUCKS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. IN OUR VIEW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN R ELYING UPON THE ACCRUAL OF INCOME AS A DETERMINATIVE FACTOR FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRUCKS WERE USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING TRANSPORT CHARGES FROM THE RAILWAYS, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTAT ION OF GOODS. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE, HAS CLEARLY EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE MERE RECEIPT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES IS NOT DETERMINATIVE F ACTOR. THUS THE REAL TEST IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE VEHICLES IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEES BUSINES S IS SUPPLYING METALS OBTAINED FROM THE QUARRY OWNED BY HIM. ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT ENTERED WITH RAILWAYS, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SUPPLY THE METALS AT THE PL ACE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT. THUS, I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 6 AS OBSERVED BY LD CIT(A), IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO TRANSPORT THE METALS TO THE PLACE SPECIFIED BY THE RAILWAYS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT THE METALS TO DIFFERENT PLACES, IT WAS ADVANTAGEOUS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FOR THE RAILWAYS TO FIX A PRICE FOR THE METALS AND TO FIX TRANSPORT CHARGES SEPARATELY. HENCE, THE TRANSPORTATION OF METALS IN THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PART OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., OPERATIN G A QUARRY AND SUPPLYING CRUSHED METALS. HENCE, WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE TRANSPORTATION IS INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF SAL E OF METAL TO RAILWAYS/PUBLIC. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF LD CIT(A) T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE VEHICLES ON HIRE. 11. WE NOTICE THAT A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPR ESSED BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAILASH CHAND BAG ARIA VS. CIT AND ANOTHER (249 ITR 720). IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND TRADING IN LIMESTONE. HE ALSO USED TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORTING LIMESTONE AND CLAIMED A HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DOMINANT PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE USED THE TR UCKS HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FOR HIS OWN BUSINESS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VENEER MILLS VS. CIT (201 ITR 764). WE ALSO NOTICE THAT C BDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULAR NO. 652 DATED 14-06-1993 (202 ITR (ST.) 55) WHEREIN THE CBD T HAS ALSO EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEW. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE C IRCULAR NO. 652 REFERRED ABOVE: CIRCULAR NO. 652, DATED 14 TH JUNE, 1993 TO. ALL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX / ALL DIRECTORS-GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX SIR, SUBJECT: SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES USED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS REGARDING. I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 7 UNDER SUB-ITEM 2(II) OF ITEM NO. III OF APPENDIX I TO THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE ON MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES AND MOTOR TAXIS USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. A QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO WHETHER, FOR DERIVING THE BENEFIT OF HIGHER DEPRECI ATION, MOTOR LORRIES MUST BE HIRED OUT TO SOME OTHER PERSON OR WHETHER THE USER OF THE SAME IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ON HIRE WOULD S UFFICE. 2. IN BOARDS CIRCULAR NO. 609, DATED 29 TH JULY 1991, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT WHERE A TOUR OPERATOR OR TRAVEL AGENT USES MOTOR BUSES OR M OTOR TAXIES OWNED BY HIM IN PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO TOURISTS, HIGH ER RATE OF DEPRECIATION WOULD BE ALLOWED ON SUCH VEHICLES. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT HIGHER DEPRECIATION WILL ALSO BE ADMISSIBLE ON MOTOR LORRIES USED IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ON HIRE. THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, HOWEVER, WILL NOT APPLY IF THE MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES, ETC. ARE USED IN SOME O THER NON-HIRING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THIS MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL THE OF FICERS IN YOUR CHARGE. 12. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE VEHICLES ON HIRE. THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAILASH CH AND BAGARIA VS. CIT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA) IS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THE INSTANT CASE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR A HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE V EHICLES USED IN HIS OWN BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 16-08-20 13. (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 16 TH AUGUST, 2013 GJ I.T.A. NO. 92/COCH/2013 8 COPY TO: 1. SHRI MATHEW ABRAHAM, THEKKUMMOOTTIL, VALLAMKULAM , THIRUVALLA. 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1, THIRUVALLA. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), TRIVANDR UM.. 4.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN