ASCHARAJLAL RAM PARKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee was assessed in the status of an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1961-62. In the assessment order the Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on a truck purchased by the assessee for the purpose of its business. THE depreciation allowed amounted to Rs. 3,000. An appeal was filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and one of the grounds was that as the assessee did not furnish the particulars in its return necessary for allowing depreciation, the Income-tax Officer should not have allowed it any amount by way of depreciation. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the plea and dismissed the appeal. A second appeal was filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also rejected the plea that depreciation should not have been allowed. It seems that the assessee took this plea because the truck was sold by it for Rs. 10,000 in October, 1963, and the difference between the original cost and the written down value apparently arose for consideration under Section 10(2)(vii) for the year 1964-65. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question :

(2.) THE assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 were commenced by notice under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment itself was concluded under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. THE contention on behalf of the assessee is that unless the assessee complies with the statutory requirement that particulars should be furnished in the return in respect of depreciation, the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to allow depreciation and inasmuch as these particulars were not furnished the allowance of depreciation by the Income-tax Officer could not be maintained.