TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the impugned disallowance notwithstanding the fact that the motor cars are registered in the name of the directors inasmuch as the appellants, having paid for the cost of the said vehicles are owners of the vehicles which have been used for the purposes of business of the appellants and hence, the said disallowance is required to be deleted." 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel filed an additional ground also, which reads as follows: "The following ground of appeal is independent of and without prejudice to the original ground of appeal - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 8 (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - 4(2) (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in disallowing car insurance Rs. 53,240 being, 50% of 1,06,479, interest paid on car loan Rs. 81,278 being 50% of 1,62,556 and motor car expenses Rs. 3,73,33 1 on motor cars on the ground that the said cars are registered in the name of the directors and not in the name of the appellant-company and hence, the appellants are not the owners of the motor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....immediately sent to them on 14th January, 2015. I further state that whatever is stated hereinabove is true to my own knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true." 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that there was no intention to file the appeal belatedly. The delay occurred on the part of the accountant inadvertently. It was beyond the knowledge of the assessee. The reasons given are duly explained in the affidavit. 5. Ld. DR could not rebut the facts narrated before us that led to the delay in filing this appeal. No serious objection was made by her in condoning the delay. Therefore, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 6. First we shall take up the additional ground. In this ground the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing fully the expenses incurred by the assessee on motor car maintenance, car insurance and interest paid on car loan. 7. The brief facts are that the AO disallowed 50% of the motor running and maintenance expenses and 100% of car insurance and interest paid on car loan. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee has contested the action of lower authorities in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 5,01,924 on motor cars on the ground that the said cars were registered in the name of the director and not in the name of the assessee company. 11. The brief background of this issue is that the AO disallowed the depreciation on the motor car on the ground that it was registered in the name of one of the directors of the assessee company and, therefore, depreciation was not allowable. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 12. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought our attention upon the written submissions filed before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein it was explained in detail along with requisite evidences that actually the assessee company is the owner of the car but due to certain reasons it was purchased in the name of the director. The assessee had paid requisite amount for purchase of the car and it was shown in its balance-sheet as such. The assessee was its owner and, therefore, entitled for depreciation. It was further submitted that since the AO had himself allowed 50% of the motor car expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore us and submissions made by both the parties before us. It is not in dispute that car has actually been purchased by the assessee company from the funds of the company and the same has been shown by the company in its balance-sheet. It was also stated that a resolution was passed by the company wherein it was clarified that though the car, for some reasons, has been purchased in the name of the director, but it belongs to the company and is owned by the company. The director has never claimed the ownership of the car. The company has undisputed ownership of the car. Both the parties involved in the transaction are clear about this factual and legal position. There is no confusion on that. Under these circumstances, it can be safely said that the company is the de-facto owner of the car. It is also not disputed that the car has been actually used by the company for its business purposes. Similar position came up before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aravali Finlease Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that where vehicle though registered in the name of the director of the company, but if entire funds for purchase of vehicles had gone from the coffers of the company a....