VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. - 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

1. The Assessing Officer 13(3)(3) and CIT (21) erred in disallowing Depreciation on Motor cars to the tune of Rs. 2,37,639/-.

In the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business activities of courier services. The assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 28.09.2013 declaring taxable income of Rs. 9,14,030/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 15.02.2016. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment disallowed depreciation on Motor cars of Rs. 2,37,639/-. , expenses on Motor cars of Rs. 1,12,523/- holding it as personal and disallowed 25% of Rs. 5,82,243/- out of various expenses on ad-hoc basis. On appeal before CIT(A) the action of the assessing officer on depriciation of vehicle and Motor car expenses was confirmed, however, out of other disallowance of expenses, the assessee was given 50% relief. & 847 Mum 2018-VPS Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, the notice sent through RPAD is returned back with the remark of postal authorities “left”. Therefore, we left no option except to hear the ld. DR for the revenue and decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below. The ld. DR further submits that both the appeals are filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee has not properly explained the delay in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the affidavit. The appeal for AY 2013-14 is delay of 28 days and the appeal for AY 2014-15 is also time barred. In absence of sufficient cause of condonation of delay the appeals are liable to be dismissed in limine.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR for the revenue and perused the record. We have noted that in appeal for AY 2013-14, the ld CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 27.09.2017. As per Colum 9 of appeal form the assessee received the impugned order on 13/11/2017, the assessee was entitled to file the appeal on or before 12.01.2018, the appeal was filed on 09.02.2018, thus, there is delay of 28 days. Further in appeal for AY 2014-15, the ld CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 03.10.2017. As per Colum 9 of appeal form the assessee received the impugned order on 12/12/2017, the assessee was entitled to file the appeal 3 & 847 Mum 2018-VPS Couriers Pvt. Ltd. on or before 11.02.2018, the appeal was filed on 09.02.2018, thus, prima facia there is no delay in filing this appeal. Perusal of the record reveals that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in appeal for AY 2013-14. We have noted that the assessee has not explained the delay in proper manner; however, keeping in view the principal on natural justice the delay in filing of the appeal for AY 2013-14 is condoned.

On merit the ld. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. The ld DR further submits that the assessee has neither substantiated his claims before the lower authorities nor they have came forward to substantiate its claim before the Tribunal, therefore the appeals of the assessee are liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR for the revenue and perused the order of the lower authorities. We have noted that during the assessment the assessee could not prove the ownership of the vehicle in the name of Assessee Company for which the depriciation was claimed.

The assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal