M/S MAC CHARLES (INDIA) LTD vs. THE ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2015 PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

ITA No. 464 of 2009 BETWEEN:

M/s Mac Charles (India) Ltd., P.B.No.174 No.28, Sankey Road Bangalore-560 052 Represented by its Managing Director Ms. Sangeetha C Pardhanani Aged about 40 years D/o Mr. C.B. Pardhanani

…Appellant

(By Sri Gurunath for Sri. S Parthasarathy, Advocate)

AND:

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1) 14/3, Rastrothana Bhavan 4th Floor, Nrupathunga Road

2 Opp. Reserve Bank of India Bangalore – 560 002

…Respondent

(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)

This ITA filed U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 30.04.2009 passed in ITA No.587/BNG/2008 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.587/BNG/2008 dated 30.04.2009 in the interest of justice and equity.

This ITA coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed by the authorities declining to grant the benefit of deduction of depreciation.

The material on record shows that the property in respect of which depreciation is sought for is not shown to belonging to the assessee. The entire claim is based on

3 certain deductions being given in the previous year and one on the basis of the electricity bills.

When depreciation is sought for in respect of immovable property, the assessee owes an obligation to produce the document to show the acquisition of the said property. It is only thereafter granting depreciation would arise. The said fundamental factor having not been established, the authorities were justified in denying the benefit. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the authorities. No merits. Dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

ksp/-