2018 (6) TMI 1609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 25th April, 2018 none had appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the notice for the said hearing was sent through RPAD. Thus the repeated notices issued to the assessee at the given address have not yielded any result and, therefore, we propose to hear and dispose off this appeal ex parte. The assessee has raised the solitary ground of appeal as under :- "1. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeal) is bad in law & not justified in addition of Rs. 22,77,188/-. 2. Other Grounds of Appeals will be urged at the time of hearing." 2. We have heard the ld. D/R and carefully perused the relevant material on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction work. The assessee has claimed higher depreciation @ ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... earth to make him entitled for higher rate of depreciation, as removal and transportation of earth are only sub-processes of his main business of laying of roads. The order of CIT (A) entitling the assessee for higher rate of depreciation on the premise that his motor vehicles were used for removal of earth and since the earth did not belong to the assessee, therefore, the use of his motor vehicles was on hire, in the opinion of this Court, is not correct, either on facts or in law, besides not being in conformity with the test laid down by the Apex Court, as indicated above, and also, with the Board's Circular No. 609/Circular No. 652 dt. 14/6/93. 9. In the case of Gaylord Constructions (2010) 190 Taxman 406 (Ker) the question raised i....