TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween "lease" and "hire" - Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to higher depreciation as the assessee did not run motor trucks, motor buses and motor vans on hire nor did it carry on the business of running them on hire - - - - - Dated:- 30-4-2003 - Judge(s) : S. H. KAPADIA., J. P. DEVADHAR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S.H. KAPADIA J.- Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated August 20, 2001 in I.T.A. No. 9987/Bom of 1992 in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee has come by way of appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This appeal involves interpretation of an entry in Appendix I--"Depreciation Table", which prescribes the table of ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce has been shown to prove that these motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis have been used in the business of running them on hire. Hence, the assessee's claim of higher depreciation at the rate of 50 per cent. of written down value came to be rejected and what was allowed was normal depreciation at the rate of 33.33 per cent. of the written down value. This view has been confirmed by the first appellate authority and Tribunal which took the view that the assessee was in the business of leasing and financing having its income from lease rent, bill discounting and service charges. It has been held by the Tribunal that by merely leasing out motor trucks, motor buses and motor vans, it cannot be stated that the assessee had used them in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the assessee, submits that in the above entry, the words used are as follows: "Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in the business of running them on hire". He contended that for the purposes of this entry, there is no difference between the connotation of the word "hire" and the word "lease". He contended that for the purposes of this entry, the word "lease" and the word "hire" mean the same thing. That, there was no difference between the two. He submitted that his argument was restricted to the scope of this entry. He contended that in general law, there is a difference between these two words but, when it comes to this particular entry being interpreted, there is no difference in the meaning to be assigned to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the dictionary, there is no qualitative difference between the words "hire" and "lease". That, even assuming for the sake of argument that there was some doubt of interpretation of the above entry then, the court should examine the object of the above entry. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the argument of the assessee that the word "hire" was qualitatively having the same meaning of the word "lease" for the purposes of the above entry. In the alternative, he contended that in this case we are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90. He contended that for the assessment year 1989-90, depreciation was to be given on the written down value of the block of assets. It was pointed out that admittedly for these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Income-tax Commissioner v. Anupchand and Co. [1999] 239 ITR 466. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kailash Chand Bagaria v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 720. Mr. Desai contended that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the above entry did not apply to the case of the assessee as the assessee has merely leased out the vehicles and that the assessee did not run the vehicles on hire nor did the assessee carry on the business of running them on hire. He, therefore, contended that there was no reason for the Tribunal to examine the alternative argument of the assessee as stated above. He contended that under the Income-tax Act, each assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tomers, it cannot be stated that the assessee is using the said vehicles in the business of running them on hire. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Before concluding, we may clarify that in this case, the assessee is given the benefit of normal depreciation. That, in this case normal depreciation has not been denied by the Department. That, the department has not impugned the genuineness of the lease. That, the only argument advanced before the department was that the word "hire" in the above entry was equivalent to the word "lease". Therefore, we are confining the judgment only to the facts of this case. There is no merit in the argument that because higher depreciation was granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
