CHAINRUP SAMPATRAM,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 34(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XX, Kolkata in Appeal No.177/CIT(A)-XX/Wd-34(3)/2010-11/Kol dated 28.02.2013. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-34(3), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2008-09 vide its order dated 31.12.2010.

2. On facts brought on records, the Ld. CIT(a) ought to have held that the depreciation is rightly claimed on the motor car purchased and owned by the appellant and the same is used for the purpose of business of the appellant.

3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.94081 is based on the ground which is different from the ground taken by the Income Tax Officer. The issue before the Ld. CIT(A) was the question of ownership of the motor car not the usage thereof.

3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has purchased a motor car for a sum of Rs.6,27,206/- and claimed depreciation thereon amounting to Rs.94,081/- . The AO required the assessee to file copy of invoice of purchase of motor car. The assessee filed copy of invoice of purchase of car which was in the name of one of the partners at the given address of the firm. The assessee filed details of payment which were out of 2 Chainrup Sampatram, AY 2008-09 assessee firm’s fund and utilized this fund for purchase of the asset for the purpose of the business of the firm. The assessee has disclosed this asset in the firm’s audited Balance Sheet but according to AO, this asset belonged to one of the partners Shri Bharat M. Duggar and accordingly, the necessary condition of ownership of car is not proved in term of section 32 of the Act and accordingly, assessee is not entitled for depreciation. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before us.