Goods carriage depreciation claim at 30% for vehicles "on hire" challenged; s.143(1) processing can't cut it to 15%.

Whether CPC could reduce depreciation from 30% to 15% on goods carriage vehicles while processing the return under s.143(1) was the dominant issue. The ITAT held that adjustments under s.143(1)(a) are confined to arithmetical errors and incorrect claims apparent from the return; issues requiring examination of law or facts, where two views are possible, fall outside the mechanical scope of s.143(1) and can be addressed only in scrutiny or reassessment. On merits, higher depreciation at 30% is allowable for goods carriages run "on hire," which includes use in the assessee's transportation business of carrying goods on hire, consistent with SC law. The disallowance was held unjustified and the addition was deleted; appeal allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, while processing a return under section 143(1), the processing authority could validly make a prima facie adjustment by restricting depreciation on goods carriage vehicles from the higher rate claimed by the assessee to the general rate, thereby disallowing part of the depreciation claimed.

(ii) Whether the assessee's claim to a higher rate of depreciation on goods carriage vehicles used in its transportation activity was a claim requiring factual verification (and therefore "debatable"), and consequently outside the limited adjustment power under section 143(1).

(iii) Whether, on the facts recorded in the order, goods carriage vehicles used in the assessee's transportation business qualify for the higher rate of depreciation applicable to vehicles "running on hire", and whether the disallowance made at processing stage was liable to be deleted.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i) & (ii): Permissibility and limits of section 143(1) adjustment in respect of depreciation rate

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Court examined the scope of adjustments permissible while processing a return under section 143(1), noting that only limited categories of adjustments can be made, such as arithmetical errors and "incorrect claim" that is apparent from information in the return. The Court further explained the statutory meaning of "incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" as confined to inconsistencies within the return, absence of required substantiating information that must be furnished with the return, or claims exceeding apparent statutory limits.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the processing power under section 143(1) is mechanical and confined to errors that are self-evident "on the face of" the return and accompanying schedules, without requiring enquiry, detailed verification, or interpretive debate. It reasoned that where a claim requires deeper examination of records-such as verification of the factual user of assets, the nature of the assessee's transportation activity, and the applicable depreciation rate-the matter is "debatable" or at least requires verification, and therefore cannot be adjusted at the processing stage. The Court treated the question whether the goods carriage vehicles were used in a qualifying manner for higher depreciation as one that necessarily demands factual verification and cannot be conclusively rejected merely from the return-processing record.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the restriction of depreciation and the resultant disallowance made while processing the return under section 143(1) was not justified because the depreciation-rate question was not an "incorrect claim apparent from" the return, but required verification and could not be resolved through a prima facie adjustment.

Issue (iii): Eligibility to higher depreciation rate for goods carriage vehicles used in transportation on hire; consequence for the addition

Legal framework (as applied by the Tribunal): The Court applied the principle that a higher depreciation rate is allowable for motor trucks used in a business of running them on hire, with the test being the user of the vehicle in the assessee's transportation business on hire. The Court also relied upon the Board's clarification (as referred to in the order) that higher depreciation is admissible on motor lorries used in the assessee's business of transportation of goods on hire, and not where vehicles are used in other non-hiring business activities.

Interpretation and reasoning: On the facts noted (including that the assessee had substantial transportation receipts alongside trading turnover, and had claimed higher depreciation specifically on goods carriage vehicles), the Court accepted that the higher depreciation principle applies to vehicles running on hire, including use in the assessee's own transportation business of moving goods on hire. The Court reasoned that the rationale is accelerated wear and tear for vehicles deployed for hire-based transportation.

Conclusion: The Court held that the processing-stage disallowance of depreciation was unjustifiable and directed deletion of the addition/disallowance made under section 143(1) (the amount disallowed being Rs. 25,04,890/- as recorded in the order). The appeal was allowed on this basis.

---