Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/2262/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 2262 of
2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-III - Appellant(s)
Versus
PRERAK
TRADING PVT LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BHATT, SR. ADV. WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 03/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue
is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 3rd
July 2009 raising following questions for our consideration :
“A.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in
reversing the order passed by CIT (A) and thereby deleting the
disallowance of claim of depreciation on Rs.41,35,800/- being the
amount shown by the assessee on account of hardware purchases?
B. Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by CIT (A) and thereby deleting the disallowance of
claim or interest to the extent of Rs.1,57,472/- with reference to
the amount of purchase of the said hardware?”
First
question pertains to disallowance of the claim of depreciation on
the purchase of hardware. The Assessing Officer discarded the said
expenditure on the ground that no such purchases were made. In
further appeal, CIT(Appeals), confirmed the view of the Assessing
Officer. The Tribunal, however, reversed the findings and came to
the conclusion that purchases were actually made. The Tribunal thus
held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation of such
expenditure.
With
the assistance of the learned counsel for the Revenue, we have
perused the orders on record. The Tribunal in particular observed
that disallowance of depreciation is based only on the statement of
one Shri Bharatbhai Patel. The Tribunal observed that the fact that
the assessee had actually acquired assets has not been doubted by
the Revenue. The assessee had produced bills and vouchers for the
purchases. We do not find any perversity in the findings. Being
purely a factual finding, no question of law arises.
Second
question pertains to interest paid on such amount. Therefore, the
said question is directly relatable to the first question. When we
are not entertaining the main question, the consequential question
does not arise.
In
the result, tax appeal is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(Ms.Sonia
Gokani, J.)
(vjn)
Top