ITO 17 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S R B B R EXPORTS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6894/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 June 2021AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be denied merely because the vehicle was registered in the name of a partner, provided the payment was made through banking channels and the vehicle was used for business purposes. The AO had not doubted the source of payment or the business use of the vehicle.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, claimed depreciation on a motor car. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation as the car was registered in the name of an individual partner, not the firm. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation can be disallowed on a business asset if it is registered in the name of a partner instead of the firm.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa (DR)
Hearing: 24/05/2021Pronounced: 25/06/2021

This is an appeal by the revenue against the order dated 20.08.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present for the assessee. Considering the nature of dispute, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material on record.

3.

The dispute in the present appeal is confined to allowance of assessee’s claim of depreciation.

4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a partnership firm. For the impugned year the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 13,37,250/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Assessment Year: 2011-12 determining the total income at Rs.17,87,251/-, which was subsequently rectified to Rs. 13,37,251/-. In other words, the return of income was accepted. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) having found that the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,09,102/- on motor car, sought to rectify the purported mistake by issuing notice under section 154 of the Act. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished purchase invoices of the motor car along with insurance documents. As observed by the AO, the motor car was found to be registered in the name of an individual and not in the name of the firm. Thus, ultimately he passed an order under section 154 of the Act disallowing the depreciation of Rs. 2,09,102/-. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance by filing an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accepting the contention of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed depreciation.

4.

I have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the submissions made by the assessee before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the payment towards purchase of the subject motor vehicle was made by the assessee through banking channel. It is also a fact that the vehicle was purchased for assessee’s business and was also used for assessee’s business. In fact, the vehicle appears as an asset in the balance sheet of the assessee. Therefore, merely because the vehicle was registered in the name of one of the partners, claim of depreciation cannot be denied. More so, when the AO has not raised any doubt regarding the source of payment made for purchase of vehicle and user of the vehicle by the assessee. For mere technical reason that it is registered in the name of the partner, claim of depreciation cannot be denied. Therefore, I agree with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds are dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Order pronounced in the open court on 25th June, 2021.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →