Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 vs Synpol Products Pvt Ltd on 11 June, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/TAXAP/529/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 529 of 2018
==========================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4
Versus
SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 11/06/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Tax Appeal is ADMITTED for consideration of following substantial question of law.
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deletion of Rs.17,83,298/ u/s 145A of the the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
2. To be heard with Tax Appeal No.170 of 2018.
3. We notice that the Revenue has proposed two more questions which read as under:
"[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.9,98,023/ on account of depreciation on motor vehicles ?
[C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deletion of addition of Rs.2,81,819/ u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act?"
4. With respect to QuestionB, we notice that the assessee company had claimed depreciation on the Page 1 of 2 C/TAXAP/529/2018 ORDER vehicles provided to the directors for their personal use and purchased in their names. The Tribunal held that the assessee had complete dominion over the vehicles and the depreciation claimed could not have been disallowed. This view has been expressed by this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aravali Finlease Ltd. reported in [2012] 341 ITR 282 Guj). This question is therefore not considered.
5. So far as questionC is concerned, the Assessing Officer applied the provision for cessation of liability only on the ground that the debt was more than three years old. It is by now well settled through series of judgments of this Court that mere lapsing of period of recovery would not bring about cessation of liability. The Courts have held that the period of limitation for recovery might have expired. The liability cannot be stated to have automatically seized. This question is also not considered.
6. Revenue is permitted to transpose the relevant documents from Tax Appeal No.528 of 2018.
(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 2 of 2