TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within the meaning of section 43(6)(b) ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation was computed and allowed actually in 1971-72 assessment year on the trucks sold in the assessment year 1972-73 ? " The assessee is an individual deriving rental income from property and income from the business of plying trucks. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee sold 3 trucks for a sum of Rs. 93,000. The said trucks had been purchased by the assessee during January, 1971, i.e., during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 at a total cost of Rs. 79,000. The assessee accordingly surrendered by way of revised return an amount of Rs. 14,000 to be taxed as capital gains. The. ITO, however, took ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the previous year, where in the past no depreciation was computed, actually allowed or carried forward, for no default of the assessee, 'the written down value' may, under clause (b) of section 43(6), also, be the actual cost of the assets to the assessee." We, therefore, answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. On the second question it has been vehemently argued by Mr. Gupta that for the assessment year 1971-72 the assessee had filed a detailed return which indicates that no depreciation had been allowed to the assessee for that year and since it had not been actually determined on the basis of the material furnished by the assessee, the ITO and the appellate courts should have taken into cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second question. We are unable to accept this submission either. If the statement of the case had not been properly drawn up, the assessee could have filed an application for rectification before the Appellate Tribunal or it could have filed a petition before this court, which application could have been disposed of at this hearing. The assessee did not adopt that course and in view of the admission made by him before the ITO, we are not inclined to allow the assessee to lead evidence on the point that the ITO did not actually allow any depreciation for the relevant year. The second question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against, the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
