Facts of the Case
The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 6 September 2002 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to Assessment Year 1995-96.
The dispute concerned the rate of depreciation allowable on
vehicles owned by the assessee and leased out to third parties. The Tribunal
had allowed depreciation at the higher rate applicable to vehicles used in the
business of running them on hire. The Revenue challenged this finding before
the High Court.
Issues Involved
- Whether
an assessee who leases out vehicles to a third party for running them on
hire is entitled to claim depreciation at the higher prescribed rate?
- Whether
mere leasing of vehicles is sufficient to grant higher depreciation, or
whether actual use of the vehicles in the business of hire is required?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)
The Revenue contended that before granting depreciation at
the higher rate, it was necessary to examine whether the leased vehicles were
actually being used in the business of running them on hire.
It was argued that the Tribunal had granted higher
depreciation merely because the vehicles had been leased out by the assessee,
without examining the actual nature of their use by the lessee.
The Revenue relied upon observations made by the Court in
the earlier decision of CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69,
wherein it was observed that eligibility for higher depreciation depends upon
actual use of the vehicles in the hiring business.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)
The assessee relied upon the Tribunal's findings and the
legal position laid down in CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69,
which recognized entitlement to higher depreciation where vehicles are leased
out for the purpose of running them on hire.
It was maintained that the Revenue had never raised any
contention before the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal that the vehicles were
not being used by the lessee for hire purposes.
Court Order / Findings
The Delhi High Court observed that the issue had already
been considered in CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69, where
it was held that vehicles leased out for running on hire qualify for higher
depreciation.
The Court noted that although the Revenue sought to argue
that actual use of the vehicles for hire should have been examined, such a plea
had never been raised before the Tribunal.
The Court further observed that it was not even the case of
the Assessing Officer that the vehicles were not used by the lessee for hire
purposes.
Since the issue stood covered by the earlier decision and no
factual dispute had been raised at the appropriate stage, the Court declined to
entertain the Revenue’s appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Important Clarification
- Vehicles
leased out by an assessee for running on hire can qualify for higher
depreciation.
- A
challenge based on alleged non-use of vehicles in the hiring business
cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time before the High Court if it
was not pleaded before the lower authorities.
- The
decision reiterates the principle laid down in CIT v. Bansal Credits
Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69.
- Questions
involving factual verification must generally be raised before the
Assessing Officer or the Tribunal and cannot be introduced at the
appellate stage under Section 260A.
Sections Involved
- Section
32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Depreciation Allowance
· Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appeal to High Court
Link to download the order -
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2003:DHC:20098-DB/DKJ02052003ITA1502003_161522.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment