C.I.T.PATIALA vs. M/S PARDEEP KUMAR C/O/MAGH RAJ TAPA

ITR/19/1990HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021568199020 September 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation on the truck. The Court reasoned that ownership for the purpose of claiming depreciation is not solely dependent on the registration of the vehicle with the transport authorities. The Supreme Court's decision in T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. & others AIR (2001) SC 3939 was cited, which held that title can be transferred by payment of consideration and delivery of the vehicle, irrespective of the name change in the R.T.O. records. Therefore, the Tribunal's view that the assessee was the real owner for all intents and purposes, and that registration was not a prerequisite for acquiring ownership of the motor vehicle, was consistent with established legal principles. The question referred was decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Pardeep Kumar, claimed depreciation of Rs. 67,000 on a truck costing Rs. 2,32,030 for assessment year 1982-83. The Income Tax Officer disallowed depreciation, noting the truck was initially purchased and registered in the name of Shri Vijay Kumar. Ownership was allegedly transferred to the assessee via an agreement dated 17.11.1981, but the registration with transport authorities remained in Shri Vijay Kumar's name. The Assessing Officer held that ownership, for depreciation purposes under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vests with the registered owner. The Tribunal, however, reversed this, finding the assessee to be the real owner and that registration was not a prerequisite for ownership. The revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation on a truck is allowable even if it was not registered with the transport authority under the Motor Vehicles Act in the name of the assessee and as such he was not the owner? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the Tribunal's finding, which the High Court upheld, implies the assessee argued that registration is not the sole determinant of ownership for depreciation purposes. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that ownership of a vehicle, as per the Transport Act, vests with the person in whose name it is registered. Consequently, depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is only allowable if the vehicle is owned by the assessee, which they argued was not the case if registration was not in the assessee's name.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.19 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.19 of 1990 Date of decision:20.9.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. ....Petitioner versus M/s Pardeep Kumar C/o Magh Raj Tapa Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its orders dated 11.7.1988 in ITA No.737/chandi/85, in respect of assessment year 1982-83 and dated 24.5.1989 in ITA No.695/Chandi/88, in respect of assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation on truck is allowable even if it was not registered with the transport authority under the Motor Vehicles Act in the name of the assessee and as such he was not the owner?”

Facts noticed by the Tribunal in the statement of case are: “Assessment in this case was completed under section 143 (3) at an income of Rs.85

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 32(1)

All 386 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →