Commissioner of Income Tax vs Darshan Singh Kalsi

Gupta, J.

The assessee is a civil contractor. He filed his return for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessee declared his income as Rs. 4,53,750. The assessing officer passed an order dated 7-1-1994 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and held that the assessee''s income was Rs. 5,71,638. While doing so, the assessing officer partially disallowed the assessee''s claim with regard to allowance of depreciation of wooden shuttering of Rs. 1,37,640. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide her order dated 18-8-1994 held that the ''disallowance of Rs. 1,03,230'', claimed by the assessee on account of depreciation, was wrong.

The revenue challenged the order of the appellate authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that in the circumstances of the case, the claim, as made by the assessee, was legally tenable. It followed its decision in the case of ITO v. S.A. Builders (P.) Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 493 (Chd.) of 1987). Hence this appeal u/s 260A of the Act.

Mr. R.P. Sawhney, the learned counsel for the revenue, contends that the Commissioner and the Tribunal had erred in accepting the claim of the assessee for the grant of 100 per cent depreciation. Thus, the counsel submits that the claim of the revenue should be accepted.

The claim for depreciation has to be examined on the basis of the evidence in the case. Various factors, like the year on which the material was purchased the depreciated value of the material and also the extent of its use have to be taken into consideration. On consideration of the matter, two authorities have taken a possible view. The findings are based on consideration of the material which was placed before the Commissioner and the Tribunal. In this situation, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this court. It may also be noticed that the Tribunal has followed its decision in the case of S.A. Builders (P) Ltd. (supra). It has not been shown that the revenue had challenged that order. In fact, Mr. Sawhney submits that no appeal was filed in that case.

In view of these circumstances, we do not find any ground to intefere u/s 260A.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.