9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , (a) that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation on car amounting to Rs. 7,06,204/-; and (b) that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the ad hoc disallowance of expenses out of conveyance, repair and maintenance, business promotion, etc. He did not press other grounds. 3. As far as the first fold of grievances is concerned, the brief facts are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 30th September, 2009 declaring an income of Rs. 36,93,160/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 23rd August, 2010. It emerges out from the record that at the relevant time the assessee was running two pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Since possession was not given and it got scratch mark, therefore, ultimately, a sum of Rs. 29,60,000/- was received by the assessee. The car was transferred on 2nd November, 2010. For buttressing this contention, he took me through page No.15 of the paper book wherein information collected from the Office of the Motor Licensing Officer has been placed on record. He also took me through page 14, where copy of Form No.29 issued under Rule 55(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been placed. On the strength of these documents, he contended that the transfer of the vehicle took place on 2nd November, 2010. Therefore, the depreciation should have been granted to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assesseer has observed that the assessee failed to bring demonstrative evidence of the user of the car for the purpose of business. The ld. First appellate authority further observed that once the assessee has received substantial part of the sale consideration, then, it be assumed that the car must have been transferred by the assessee. In my opinion, the ownership of an asset can be demonstrated by the relevant evidence, namely, if it is a tangible asset being building, land, etc., the registered sale deed could prove the ownership. If it is a machinery like car, ship, etc., then, the registration certificate could demonstrate the ownership. In the present case, it is pertinent to take note of the certificate issued by the licensing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny would reimburse the claim in case of theft. How an assessee can afford to hand over a vehicle to an unauthorized person under attending circumstances which can expose him for payment of compensation in case it met with an accident? The owner of the vehicle could be held liable in case it is involved in some criminal or anti social activities. There could be chances for receipt of purchase price, but, to my mind, transfer of ownership could only be construed when it is effected under the Motor Vehicle Act. There may be dispute between the vendee and vendor, payments might have been made, but, unless transfer is effected under the Motor Vehicle Act, the ownership on the basis of circumstances cannot be recognized. To my mind, the ld. first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and expenses have been incurred in cash 3,28,444 25,000 1.67% 7.61% M/s D.I. Management International Services Office repair & maintenance to cover up unvouched expenses 9,88,595 40,000 2.36% 4.05% Business promotion and staff welfare expenses on the ground that the expenses of personal nature cannot be ruled out. 35,577 6,51,655 30,000 1.64% 4.36% Vehicle repair & maintenance expenses being 1/8 on the ground of use of the assessee 1,34,301 16,790 0.32% 12.5% Depreciation on vehicle being 1/8 on the ground of use of the assessee 42,060 5,260 12.5% Telephone expenses on the ground of use of the assessee 39,80,658 12,000 9.49% 0.30% 11. With the assistance of the ld. Representatives, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
