9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirming the action of the Assessing Officer-in restricting depreciation such vehicle at Rs. 3,48,143/- (at the rate of 15%), as against the claim of Rs,11,60,477/- (at the rate of 50%). 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-, treated as additional agricultural expenses met out of alleged undisclosed sources, out of the total addition of Rs. 2,21,613/-made by the Assessing Officer. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 7,58,565/-, out of the total interest claimed to the tune of Rs. 15,14,087/-. The said disallowance is grossly unjustified both on the facts and the circumstances of the case, as well as in law. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing." 3. At the outset, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press the grounds no.2. Therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. 4. The first issue raised in ground no.1 is that ld CIT(A) erred in restricting the depreciation on vehicle from Rs. 11,60,477/- to Rs. 3,48,143/-. 5. Br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Avanti Feeds Ltd. reported in 35 SOT 50. However, the ld CIT(A) disagree with the submission of the assessee and accordingly confirmed the order of AO by observing as under: "In the case of the assessee the said vehicle i.e. Mercedes has been purchased and Assessing Officer has observed that no proof has been produced to substantiate that the vehicle is registered as a commercial vehicle. In fact during the course of assessment proceedings the Authorized Representative has admitted that the vehicle concerned is not registered as a commercial vehicle with RTO, but the same was used for the business purpose. The Appellant has not been able to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is held that assessee is not eligible to claim depreciation @ 50% on this vehicle and Assessing Officer has rightly restricted depreciation to Rs. 3,48,143/- @ 15% as against the claim of Rs. 11,60,477/- @50% and the difference was added to the total income. This ground of appeal fails." 6.1 Being aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Ld AR before us reiterated the submission as made before the lower authorities. 7.1 The AR furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2009 and new Appendix has been introduced. The ld. CIT (A) made reference to Notification no.10/2009 dated 19.1.2009 and also para-6 of the said notification which gives definition of commercial vehicle. I have examined this notification available on page no.1.426 of Income Tax Rules (3rd Edition) of Taxmann i.e. 2016 edition. Paragraph-6 contemplates definition of "commercial vehicle". This paragraph is available at page no.1.433 of the Taxmann's Income Tax Rules. I find it is verbatim same as considered by the ITAT, Mumbai. There is no such condition that vehicle would qualify as "commercial vehicles" when licensed to be used as public transport. For facility of reference, I take note of this as under: '6. "Commercial vehicle" means "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle" and "medium passenger motor vehicle" but does not include "maxi-cab", "motor-cab", "tractor" and "road-roller". The expressions "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "maxi-cab", "motorcab", "tractor" and "roadroller" shall have the me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 12. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of AO by observing as under: "As explained above the assessee has not utilized the total amount of Rs. 50,57,100/- (Rs.13,50,000/- for firms, Rs. 36;07,100/- for LIC & Shares and Rs. 1,00,000/- for flat booking) for the business purpose and assessee is paying average interest @ 15%. Therefore, it is held that Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 7,58,565/- out of total interest of Rs. 15,14,087/- claimed by the assessee. This addition is confirmed and the ground of appeal is dismissed." 12.1 Being aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. 13. The ld AR before us submitted that the assessee during the year has declared an income of Rs. 1,04,56,940/- which is sufficient enough to justify that the money was advanced/invested out of the own fund available with him. The ld AR for the assessee in support of his claim relied on the judgment of High Court of Bombay on the CIT vs. Reliance and Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 178 Taxman 135. 13.1 Ld AR for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
