TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me was determined 82,66,440/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer (AO), assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 18/02/2013 (in Appeal No.CIT(A)-VIII/ITO/Wd.4(1)/507/10-11) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised following grounds:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,72,972/- made in respect of depreciation on cars purchased during the year under consideration. 2. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld.AO in levying interest u/s.234A/B/C/D of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of these cars for the purpose of business, the same were not furnished. Therefore; use of car for the purpose of company's business is not established by the appellant Although .the onus to prove the user of asset was on the appellant, the same was not discharged either before the assessing officer or before the undersigned. Claim of an expense in the company accounts is not an evidence to prove that asset was used for the business of the company. In the absence of any tangible evidence to prove the business use of the motor car purchased in the name of director, it is held that the motor car was not used for the purpose of appellant's business. Coming to the appellant's argument of beneficial ownership, appellant submitted that payment for the car was made by the company and hence the appellant is the beneficial owner. Payment will not determine the ownership since payment can be made by way of loan also. In fact major payment is made by finance company but it is not the beneficial owner. Since both appellant and its director are separate entities and directors are not permanent, it cannot be said that appellant company has got complete dominion over the motor car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the decision of jurisdictional ITAT is not followed which has not considered these decisions. It is therefore held that the depreciation claimed by the appellant is correctly disallowed by the assessing officer. The ground of the appellant is dismissed." 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 3.1. Before us, ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO and ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that on identical issue, the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal (ITAT "D" Bench Ahmedabad) in the case of Aflon Alplast Pvt. Vs. ITO in ITA No.186/Ahd/2012 for AY 2008-09, order dated 30/01/2015 has decided the issue in favour of assessee. He also placed on record the copy of aforesaid decision. He therefore submitted that following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Aflon Alplast (supra), the assessee's claim of depreciation be allowed. The ld.Sr.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as the decision relied upon by the ld.AR. The issue in the present case i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used by the assessee for the purposes of its business. The controversy is in regard to ownership of the car. The contention of the assessee is that car being not registered under the Motor Vehicles Act in the name of the company, by itself is not sufficient to hold the contrary. The factual position as stated by the assessee is not disputed by the Revenue. The contention of the Revenue is that unless the car is registered in the name of the assessee under the Motor Vehicles Act, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction of depreciation allowance in respect thereof. We are of the opinion that the assesses, who had purchased the car for valuable consideration and used the same for its business, cannot be denied the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicles Act or that the vehicle stood in the name of a director of the assessee company in the records of the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. 5.1 The aforesaid view is supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Navdurga Transport Co., 235ITR 150 (All), wherein the issue was as to whether firm was entitled to depreciation on cars, brought in to the firm ....