9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is hereby drawn. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It carried on various businesses, among them was the business of plying lorries for hire. One of the lorries MYS 5424X was purchased new during the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1952-53 for a sum of ₹ 23,769. In that accounting year it ran for 4+ months. The depreciations allowed in regard to this lorry from 1952-53 are as under : Assessment Depreciation (Rs.) Additional Initial year depreciation (Rs.) Depreciation (Rs.) 1952-53 1,981 1,981 1953-54 4,754 4,952 1954-55 2,476 2,476 9,409 9,409 4,754 In the accounting year ending on March 31, 1955, the assessee sold this lorry for ₹ 10,000. During this accounting year, it ran for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee appealed, among other things, against the computation of the profit under section 10(2)(vii) in 1955-56 and 1956-57. The contention was that the initial depreciation allowed in respect of the two lorries mentioned above should not be taken into account in arriving at the written down value of the two lorries. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention. After referring to section 10(2)(vib), he observed that : " ........initial depreciation is restricted in the sense that the depreciation which is allowed at the time of installation is kept apart and is not deducted in determining the written down value for the subsequent assessments. It certainly forms part of the depreciation allowance and is in addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 922 ? " In regard to the assessment year 1955-56 the assessee has raised the following question of law : " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated February 29, 1960, and communicated to the assessee on April 4, 1950, is barred by limitation within the meaning of section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " The facts relating to the above are as under : The accounting year is the year ending March 31, 1955, corresponding to the assessment year 1955-56. This assessment was completed under section 23(3) on February 29, 1960. This assessment order was sent by registered post to the assessee. It was received by the assessee on April 4, 1960. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of service of the order on the appellant, there does not seem to be any necessity to refer to a decision under a different enactment. Following respectfully the decision of the Madras High Court, I hold that the order of the Income-tax Officer was made well within time and that it is legally valid. " There was a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in rejecting the assessee's contention. The order of the Tribunal forms part of the case. Taking up the second question first the point under discussion is covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in RM. P. R. Viswanathan Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax ([1954] 25 I. T. R. 79). We are in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by Sri Srinivasan are : (1) that the second part of section 10(2)(vi) does not say " in respect of depreciation " and (2) that if section 10(2)(vi) only dealt with the depreciation allowances, clause (c) of the proviso would have mentioned " the aggregate of all allowances provided under the clause ". Neither of these contentions appears to be sound. Now coming to the main part of section 10(2)(vi) the words " in respect of depreciation " not only governs the first part of that clause but also the second part. It must be remembered that the first part and the second part of that clause are only separated by a colon and not by a fullstop. On a plain reading of section 10(2)(vi) it is clear that that provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
