2015 (7) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as well as on facts. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining an addition of a sum of Rs. 17,33,317/- alleged to be excess depreciation claimed during the year under appeal. The basis of such calculation has not been elaborated in the order of assessment." 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR sought an adjournment however considering the material available on record it was indicated that the adjournment would not be given. It was pointed out from the record that on the earlier two occasions when the appeal came up for hearing i.e 28.10.2013 & 06.02.2014, it was adjourned on the request of the assessee. Accordingly being of the view that sufficient time has already been granted no adjournment in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is engaged in the business of running vehicles on hire or commercial vehicle leased out. In these cases the higher rate of depreciation is applicable only when the leased out vehicles are actually being used in the business of hiring. The assessee has not put to use these vehicles on Hire purposes and neither these vehicles were leased out by the assessee. The assessee is using the vehicles for transportation of their own products i.e. for their own business purpose. Therefore, assessee cannot claim higher rate of depreciation as it is supported by the decisions of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.M. Constructions case (supra), Hon'ble Guwahati High Court In ABC India Ltd. case (supra) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m so as to show how the order is not maintained in law or facts. The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and find ourselves in agreement with the finding of the CIT(A). The argument of the assessee that depreciation @ 40% should be allowed on the reasoning that it was granted at the said rate by u/s 143(3) in the earlier and subsequent year cannot be accepted as in taxation matters each assessment year is a separate assessment and the principles of res judicata do not apply. The material fact that the lorries were used in assessee's own business and had never been hired clearly clinches the issue against the assessee and the reliance placed upon the decision of the Delhi High ....