Tribunal allows appeal, condones delay, rules no taxable profit, assessee not liable for interest charges.

The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the assessee not receiving a challan for payment of fees. Regarding the calculation of profit chargeable under s. 41(2), the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that no profit was taxable as depreciation was not actually allowed in previous years. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support this interpretation. The issue of interest charges under s. 139 and s. 271 was not pursued by the assessee during the proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Calculation of profit chargeable to tax under s. 41(2).
3. Charging of interest under s. 139 and s. 271.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed late by 10 days, and the assessee sought condonation of delay due to not receiving a challan for payment of fees. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was entertained after considering the reasons provided by the assessee.

Calculation of Profit under s. 41(2):
The dispute centered around the calculation of profit chargeable to tax under s. 41(2) concerning the sale of a truck. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed the profit at Rs. 9,083, while the assessee argued that no profit was chargeable under s. 41(2) as the sale proceeds were lower than the written down value. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) allowed a relief of Rs. 3,701 but confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,382. However, the Tribunal held that no profit was taxable in that year as no depreciation was actually allowed in the previous assessment years, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 5,382.

Interpretation of Depreciation Rules:
The Tribunal analyzed the depreciation rules under s. 43(6) and cited legal precedents to support its decision. It referenced the Supreme Court case of Madeva Upendra Sinia and the Allahabad High Court cases to establish that depreciation must be "actually allowed" and not merely notional. As depreciation was not factually allowed in the previous years, the written down value of the asset was considered to be the actual cost, leading to the conclusion that no profit was chargeable under s. 41(2).

Charging of Interest under s. 139 and s. 271:
The second ground of appeal related to the charging of interest under s. 139 and s. 271. The assessee did not present any arguments on this issue, and the Tribunal affirmed the AAC's decision that there was no right of appeal against the charging of interest under these sections.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee on the issue of profit calculation under s. 41(2) based on the interpretation of depreciation rules and legal precedents. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the issue of interest charges under s. 139 and s. 271 was not pursued by the assessee during the proceedings.

---