RAJESH ROADLINES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(2)(2), MUMBAI

Brief facts are, the assessee a company is engaged in the business of transportation and commission agent. In the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 19th November 2006, declaring total income at ` nil. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on verifying assessee’s claim of depreciation noticed, it has claimed depreciation on 13 trucks purchased during the year out of which the assessee had produced supporting evidences in respect of 11 trucks. Whereas, no supporting evidence in respect of purchase of two trucks i.e., trucks bearing registration no.MH–04–CG–4972 and MH–04–CG–4973 claimed to have been purchased on 7th April 2005 were produced. Alleging that in spite of specifically called upon to produce documentary evidence in support of purchase of two trucks, assessee could not file the same, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation on the said two trucks amounting to ` 5,63,822. Challenging such disallowance, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

In the course of hearing before the first appellate authority, the assessee produced photocopy of purchase invoice, R.C. book, copy of certificate from the financer to prove the purchase of two trucks. The 3 M/s. Rajesh Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.

Learned Authorised Representative submitted before us, as the trucks were purchased through financing companies assessee could not produce copy of purchase invoices and other documents before the Assessing Officer since they were with the financing company. He submitted, before the first appellate authority though the assessee produced photocopy of these evidences, but he did not take note of these documentary evidences for the technical reason that assessee had not filed application for admission of additional evidences under rule 46A. As far as the allegation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), that assessee did not produce original purchase invoice, R.C. book, etc., learned Authorised Representative submitted, since the drivers of the trucks have to carry the original R.C. book and insurance documents, the assessee could not produce them at the time of hearing before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, photocopies were produced. He, therefore, submitted, as the assessee

Learned Departmental Representative though relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he submitted that one more opportunity can be given to the assessee to produce the original purchase invoices, R.C. book, etc., before the Assessing Officer to prove its ownership over two trucks.

We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. As is evident, assessee’s claim of depreciation on the two trucks mentioned herein before was disallowed by the Assessing Officer primarily for the reason that the assessee could not produce documentary evidence to prove his ownership over the two trucks. Though, before the first appellate authority, the assessee produced photocopy of the purchase invoice, R.C. book, etc., as well as certificate from the finance company through which assessee purchased the truck but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) refused to take cognizance of the documentary evidence produced by the assessee as they are not in strict compliance to the provisions of rule 46A. In our view, if the assessee had produced certain documentary evidence before the first appellate authority he should

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.08.2016