1999 (2) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in violation of r. 46A of IT Rules. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation on car to the extent of 5/6th of depreciation admissible. 4. That while allowing relief at 2 above, the learned CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the assessee has not adduced any evidence to the facts that the car was actually used for business purposes." 2. In brief, the facts material for the disposal of the above grounds of appeal are as under: 3. Return declaring an income of Rs. 1,00,260 for the asst. yr. 1991-92 was filed by the assessee on 30th Oct., 1991. The assessee derived income from Kartarpur Malwa Filling Station, tankers hire income, bank interest, N.S.C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies. 7. Firstly, we shall take up ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the appeal which pertains to the disallowance of depreciation of car to the extent of 5/6th of the depreciation claims of the assessee. On going through the order of the CIT(A), we find that she has observed that in the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 the AO has allowed the claim of depreciation on the car to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 5/6th of the depreciation admissible. In the year under consideration, the claim for depreciation had been made at Rs. 7,716 i.e. Rs. 9,259 minus Rs. 1,543 i.e. 1/6th for personal use equal to Rs. 7,716 and thus we see no justification in rejecting the claim of the assessee in the year under consideration when the same had been allowed by the D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts, it is apparent that in the expenses claimed the depreciation had not been included and hence, was required to be separately allowed. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow claim for depreciation made at Rs. 40,000 and amend the order accordingly." 10. In ground No. 2, the Revenue is aggrieved against the CIT(A) who has admitted fresh evidence in the form of vouchers in violation of r. 46A of the IT Rules. It means that the Revenue wants that these vouchers should not have been admitted in evidence by the CIT(A) because no opportunity has been afforded to the AO before admitting the same but the question arises that even if we presume that this argument to be correct, then we have to consider as to whether by allowing fresh opport....