Depreciation claim denied for truck & machinery by ITAT Pune, citing need for proper documentation.

The ITAT Pune upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the withdrawal of depreciation on a truck and the restriction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the necessity for the assessee to claim depreciation and provide proper details for it to be allowed, as supported by legal precedents cited during the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of depreciation on a truck by the ITO.
2. Restriction of depreciation on plant and machinery to 10% instead of 15%.

Issue 1: Withdrawal of depreciation on the truck
The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the ITO's rectificatory order withdrawing depreciation on a truck costing Rs. 2,25,337, which was not claimed or detailed by the assessee. The assessee argued that the withdrawal was based on a mere change of opinion, but later admitted that no depreciation was claimed earlier. The CIT(A) relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, stating that the ITO could withdraw depreciation if not claimed properly. The Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was also cited to support the withdrawal. The ITAT Pune upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the requirement for the assessee to claim depreciation and furnish particulars for it to be allowed.

Issue 2: Restriction of depreciation on plant and machinery
The assessee did not contest the restriction of depreciation on plant and machinery by the ITO. The CIT(A) did not address this issue as no ground was raised regarding it in the appeal. The ITAT Pune noted that the ground related to this issue was misconceived and untenable since it did not arise from the CIT(A)'s order. The learned counsel for the assessee did not present any arguments on this matter during the hearing. Consequently, the ITAT Pune upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue as well.

In conclusion, the ITAT Pune dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the withdrawal of depreciation on the truck and the non-contested restriction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The judgment highlighted the importance of the assessee claiming depreciation and providing necessary particulars for it to be allowed, as per relevant legal precedents cited during the proceedings.

---