SMT. SUJATA PANI,DHENKANAL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL WARD, DHENKANAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 396/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the claim of higher depreciation on the tanker used for hire purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation at 30% on a tanker, but the Assessing Officer allowed only 15% due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to a higher depreciation rate on a tanker used for hire purposes without providing sufficient evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Hearing: 17/05

Per N.S.Saini, AM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 31.8.2017 for the assessment year 2012-

2013.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in

confirming the depreciation rate @ 15% instead of 30% charged by the

assessee on Tanker is contrary to income tax as rate of depreciation on

motor car running for hire purposes is 30%.

2 ITA No .396/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

3.

In pursuance to order under section 263 of the Act, the Assessing

Officer required the assessee to produce evidence in respect of claiming of

higher rate of depreciation i.e. 30% of the WDV of the tanker. Before the

Assessing Officer, the assessee could not submit any evidence.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee will be entitled to

depreciation @ 15% as against higher rate of depreciation @ 30% and,

therefore, disallowed excess depreciation of Rs.1,52,827/- and added the

same to the income of the assessee.

4.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer

as the assessee failed to produce any evidence that the tankers are being

used for transportation of oil from depot to petrol pump.

5.

Before us, ld A.R. could not file any evidence to show that the

tanker was used by the assessee in the business of running them on hire.

Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby

confirmed and ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 17 /05/2018.

Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 17 /05/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS

3 ITA No .396/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Smt. Sujata Pani, C/O T.P.Satpathy, Golden Street, Kunjakanta, Dhenkanal 2. The Respondent. ITO, Dhenkanal. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →