Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM]
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.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.94,081/-. For this, assessee has raised following ground nos. 1 to 3: “1The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XX, Kolkata confirming the addition of Rs.94081 made by the Income tax Officer in computing the taxable income of the appellant is contrary to law and the facts of the case.
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.
We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that admittedly the assessee purchased this car for his business purposes but in the name of one of the partners. The funds were utilized from the firm for purchase of this car and the car is part of assessee’s Balance sheet i.e. of movable assets and part of depreciation chart whether it is purchased in the name of partners but on behalf of firm and address of the firm is given. In view of this position, the assessee is fully entitled to get depreciation on the above car and we hold so. The appeal of assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.