TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat this appeal is time barred by 29 days and on going through the reasons of delay in filing this appeal we find that assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within 60 days as assessee was awaiting the outcome of application dated 25.4.2013 filed for rectification u/s 154 before ld. CIT(A)-IV, which was rejected on 5/6/2013 and this order of rejection of application was received by assessee on 12.07.2013. In the given circumstances, assessee was having reasonable cause for not filing appeal in time, we accept the same and condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:- (1) The learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to understand the facts and circumstances of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... depreciation of Rs. 6,787/-on opening written down value of the block of assets namely Plant & machinery on which depreciation @ 50% was allowed in preceding years on invalid ground that assessee is not engaged in business of hiring." Honourable IT AT, may issue necessary direction to the assessing officer. (3) The learned commissioner (Appeal) erred in confirming disallowing of depreciation of Rs. 1,78,699/- on addition made during the year on Motor vehicle in respect of which depreciation @ 50% in the category of "New commercial vehicles acquired during the specified period" as specified in clause [3](via) of the New Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on invalid ground that assessee is not engaged in business of hiring. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the above submission of the appellant is not found to be tenable. The appellant had purchased the new Toyota Innova Car in march 2011 for which cost of acquisition was shown at ? 10,21,134/- and depreciation of said Toyota Car was shown @ 25% as this car was purchased by the appellant after September. In this regard, it i mentioned that the appellant is not entitled for claiming the depreciation @ 50% on such Toyota Car as the business of the appellant was not running the cars on hire. In view of this fact, the benefit of depreciation @ 50% under the block III, Machinery and Plant (3) (via) was not admissible to this Toyota Innova Car. I agree with the view of the AO that the motor car other than those used in the business of running t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relied on the decision of the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Daleep S. Chandnani vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.7307(Mum) of 2003 and 4059(Mum) of 2004 for Asst. Years 1999-2000 and 2001-02 vide order dated 12th October, 2006, wherein similar type of issue was adjudicated and decision was delivered in favour of assessee. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 of the appeal relate to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 6,787/- and Rs. 1,78,699/- hitherto claimed by the assessee on w.d.v. and new motor car purchased falling under the category of 50% block of depreciation which was not accepted by the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....profession then assessee so as to claim 50% depreciation. 8.1 We further observe that similar type of issue relating to motor car being a LMV and used for business or profession as commercial vehicle was held to be eligible for special rate of depreciation by the Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Daleep S. Chandnani vs. ACIT (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under :- "As per the third proviso to section 32, in respect of the asset being commercial vehicle acquired between 2-10-1998 and 31-3-1999, the depreciation has to be allowed on such percentage on the WDV thereof as may be prescribed. As per the provisions of section 43(6)(c )(\\) WDV means the written down value of that block of asset as increased by the act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passengers but not more than twelve passenger1; excluding the driver for hire or reward. Similarly, the term 'motor cab' also excludes any motor vehicle for hire or reward. If the provisions of Explanation to third proviso to section 32 and the definition of maxi-cab and motor cab as given in the Motor Vehicles Act are read together then motor vehicles used for hire or reward would not be covered under the third proviso to section 32 and such motor vehicles would be covered under entry (2)(\i) of Item III of Part A of Appendix I (applicable for the assessment years 1988-89 to 2002-03) of the Rules. This conclusion further leads to an inference that the Legislature has given benefit of higher depreciation to the assessees not engage....