TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uters were said to have been leased out by the assessee to Altos India Ltd. (for short " Altos ") for a period of three years against a security deposit of Rs. 25,13,100. The claim of the assessee of depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The application of the petitioner filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act was dismissed holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact involving no question of law. The assessee has filed the present application under section 256(2) of the Act praying that the Tribunal be directed to state th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the assessee-company, could it be held in law that no delivery was legally made to the assessee-company, depriving him of the benefit of the claim of depreciation of Rs. 37,69,273? " At the outset, we may observe that the order of the Tribunal does not show that it took into consideration other transactions said to be admittedly genuine which form part of the aforesaid question No. 1. From the facts found it seems clear that in so far as Altos and Pertech Computers Ltd. are concerned, they belong to same management having Dadan Bhai as one common director. Briefly, the facts found by the Tribunal are these : Altos is the manufacturer of the computers. It sold the computers to Pertech Computers Ltd. its selling agent. Pertech Compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire transaction was inter-woven, which gives a mere colour of paper transaction without any transaction of actual sale. The main contention urged before us is that the findings/conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are based on suspicion and surmises and that suspicion, however strong, cannot partake of the character of evidence or material and any finding of fact recorded on such a basis is vitiated in law. As a matter of proposition of law, we have no quarrel with the proposition that suspicion, however strong, cannot partake of the character of evidence. However, in view of the findings of fact noticed by the Tribunal and conclusions arrived at, it cannot be held that the conclusions of the Tribunal are based on mere suspicion or surm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
