TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000, was on 23rd Jan., 1985. Subsequently, on 5th Feb., 1985 and 20th Feb., 1985, the assessee paid Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 2,18,600 respectively. The gas cylinders were kept at the godown of Bharat Engineering Co., which is a company connected with the vendor in this case. The assessee had entered into an agreement with Aggarwal Steel Industries for the lease of these assets. Such an agreement was entered into on 15th March, 1985. The assessee had also received a sum of Rs. 5,000 as advance. The agreement with Aggarwal Steel Industries stipulated that this party would give an advance of Rs. 17,000 and further a bank guarantee equal to the cost of the cylinders to the assessee. The lessee had obtained the bank guarantee on 10th May, 1985. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been alleged by the Assessing Officer in his order. He has further adverted to the fact that the agreement between the assessee and the lessee did not bear any date. It was explained to him that this must have been the result of a mistake on the part of the parties to the agreement and the same cannot be indicative of what the Assessing Officer alleges that the agreement was entered into on a later date. If the intention was to ante-date the agreement, nothing prevented the parties to the agreement to do the same. The Assessing Officer has, in this connection, also examined Bholanathji Agarwal. Sri Bholanathji Agarwal, in his deposition, has stated that he was acquainted with the assessee who was the lessor in this case. He was only de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the goods were put to use in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and, in this connection, he relies on the material on which a lot of reliance has been placed by the Revenue authorities, including the CIT(A). All the evidence that was produced was doctored to meet the requirements of the assessee, i.e., to get the claim admitted with a view to reducing the incidence of tax. This was a clear case of tax planning with should be discarded. 5. We have heard the parties to the dispute and, in our view, the claim of the assessee is unexceptionable. It is on record that the cylinders were acquired by the assessee as early as in the month of February, 1985. There was an agreement between the assessee and the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for denying depreciation. The claim of the Department that this was intended to reduce the incidence of tax has also not much substance. The income of the assessee in the subsequent two years is of the same order as in the year under consideration. By falsifying the claim, the assessee could at best withhold the payment of tax for a few months and nothing more. The depreciation is something which the assessee is entitled to get either in this year or the year to follow because it is not the case of the Department that the cylinders were never given on lease. As observed earlier, there is enough material to show that the assessee had acquired the cylinders in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, and there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
