P. Divakaran Nair vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivanrum

C.N. Ramanchandran Nair, J.—Heard counsel for the appellant and senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue. Common question which arises in both the appeals pertains to assessee''s claim for depreciation on two lorries. The assessee is a contractor who has returned 12 per cent net contract receipts as income from business. The assessing officer instead of granting depreciation reduced the net income from 12 per cent offered to 10 per cent. Even though first appeal was allowed, the Tribunal reversed the order of the first appellate authority by stating that no evidence is there to establish ownership and use of lorries for business purposes. We do not find any justification to interfere with Tribunal''s order because if evidence is lacking about ownership and use of the truck in business, appellant is not entitled to depreciation. We also notice that the Officer was considerate to the assessee because while declining depreciation he reduced the net income returned from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. Therefore we do not find any ground to interfere with Tribunal''s order on this issue. The next question pertains to addition of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 43,000 and odd, respectively for the two assessment years, for want of explanation, for the credit made in the OD account. Even though assesses produced certificate from the Chit Fund about source, it is noticed that Chit Fond was closed and no cross checking could be made. The Tribunal noticed that confirmation letter issued by the Chit Fund was available with the assessee even at the time of assessment, but assesses did not produce the same. Therefore the Tribunal was of the view that document produced by the appellant cannot be accepted at the stage of appeal. We do not Go anything wrong in the Tribunal''s view because if the confirmation letter was available nothing stopped the assessee from producing it before the assessing officer. The assessee did not offer explanation for the non-production of confirmation, letter before the assessing officer at the time of assessment. Probably documents would have been obtained with back date later. We do not find any question of law arising on this issue also.

We therefore dismiss both the appeals.