1987 (3) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee had not claimed depreciation in the original return but only in the revised return filed on25-3-1985. It was a 1982 model open truck which the assessee purchased on17-2-82from Pacos G. T. Karnal Road Kundli, District Sonepat for Rs. 2,30,180. He obtained permission on18-3-1982from the Secretary R. T. A. Faridabad for getting this vehicle inspected by the Board of Inspection. The body was constructed on the vehicle and then it was produced before the Board of Inspection on19-9-82. However the Certificate of fitness was not issued and the fitness documents were impounded. The assessee therefore, filed a writ petition before the P & H High Court (CW No. 1594 of 1982) against (i) the Registering Authority; (ii) Motor Vehicles Inspecto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; (iv) Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom.); (v) CED v. R. Kanakasabai (1973) 89 ITR 251 (SC); (vi) Famous Cine Laboratories & Studios Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 648 (Bom.); (vii) Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Delhi); (viii) CIT v. Vayithri Plantation Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 675 (Mad.); and (ix) CIT v. O. P. Khanna & Sons (1983) 140 ITR 558 (Punj. & Har.) Referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nowroji Jehangir Gamadia v. Dy. Collector AIR 1986 Bom. 373 he submitted that a liberal interpretation had to be given, On the other hand Smt. Archana Ranjan, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the orders of the income-tax authorities. She referred to the Commentar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 makes the contravention of section 22, punishable. It would not be right to say that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not prohibit the plying of the truck absolutely. The reason for which a fitness certificate or the grant of registration were withheld, is therefore not material. It is also noteworthy that in the present case taking out of the truck for purposes of inspection on 19-3-82 and 7-5-82 or for the purposes of having a body built thereon prior to the registration of the vehicle would not tantamount to the user of the same nor can it be said that it was for that reason, ready for use. Though the truck was purchased on 17-2-82 (i.e., within the assessment year in question) the registrati....