TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shnan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER Per: Diva Singh: By the present appeal the assessee assails the correctness of the order dated 19.02.2013 of the CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi pertaining to 2006-07 assessment year. on the following grounds:- 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad both on law and facts. 2. That proceedings u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act are bad both in law as well as on facts. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining an addition of a sum of ₹ 17,33,317/- alleged to be excess depreciation claimed during the year under appeal. The basis of such calculation has not been elaborated in the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... response to the notice the assessee vide his letter dated 04/08/2010 had replied that assessee's business is of trading nature and is transporting the goods in the same way as being used for hiring form outside for transportation of goods for the business of assessee. The assessee has relied on the judgement in the cases of CIT Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. 2003. However on perusal of the above said case, it was found that this judgment is applicable in cases where assessee is engaged in the business of running vehicles on hire or commercial vehicle leased out. In these cases the higher rate of depreciation is applicable only when the leased out vehicles are actually being used in the business of hiring. The assessee has not put to use the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was placed upon the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 0069 (Del). 5. Not convinced with the explanation offered the CIT(A) upheld the rectification order passed u/s 154. 6. Aggrieved by this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the tax authorities. However he was unable to assail the finding of fact that the tankers owned by the assessee were used in its own business and were never hired out. No judgement of any Court was referred to in support of its claim so as to show how the order is not maintained in law or facts. The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue is not debatable. For ready-reference, we extract para 14 of the said judgement:- 14. A bare perusal of the above circular clearly shows that this is applicable in respect of motor buses and motor lorries used in a business of running them on hire whereas the assessee is utilizing the vehicles for its own business and is not carrying on business of hiring of motor vehicles. The Bombay High Court in S. C. Thakur and Bros.'s case (supra) was dealing with a case where the business of the assessee was running of motor vehicles on hire and the assessee had utilized the motor lorry in his own business of transportation of goods on hire. Such being not the position here, neither the circular nor the judgment support the case of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
