^-F XI-HG—78 ^- •s^f -BTRriCT^ ^it^rrs, •{iRTCPp:'';, <sn^s 'tra?? ('^R^'4) a'i^qm?;fw •aaiiail^r^qfe' s^< ^fi?a ^ii^i APPELL.ANT: RE.SPONDENTS: Di-rision Bench: Hon. Shri R.N. Chaadrakar, JJ. ^i^icf'-A-] TTtRt ^f 'iyA •!f3rBK ^; sifgn ••sf^fi Comm.issioner of !ncoine Tax, Bilaspur -Veifeus- 1. | Income Tax Appellate Tribimal, ir ">.. Kailaslt Chaad Agrawal, Proprietor Bslaji Road Carrier, 1 T.P, Nagar, Korba(CG) Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, cou4sel for the appe.llaiit. S-tiri Parag Kotecha, counsel ^>r respondent No.2. The iastaat. appeal of fhe Rf^venue under Section 260-A of the [ncom.e Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'ft^e Act'] agaiast fhe uapugned order jif the Incoiue Tax AppeUate Tritoiin^l (for sliort 'tiie Tribunat') has been ^dinitted for hearing on follow.iiig sijibstan.tial qiiestions oflaw:- the circunistaaces of the case, fb.e Trfbunal were right in holdina ftiat • Whether oil the facts aad iai leaiiied Incom.e Tax AppeHat^ assessee is a contractor |wa.s entitled to higher ratc depreciation at 40% on flie Tippers used by it in its contiact job? d:f XI-HC— ^ e>tl)y<16, 'fsTCTlTiy^ ^o S'* 3il^l q>i K-fi<* aqT31i^IW:ira' TRnwai?3 an^i SiplfrfqR iT'H'aT -q ftW^faRy qTS'iTRS^i! • Whether The circiriar in qujestion. issued bv tiie C.B.D.T. is bindin.g under Section 119 (1) ofthe Incoiue Tax Act on the facts aad circuiastances of the cas^? Brieflv stated facts offhe cast' are fhat the respondent/assessee |Ued retum on 28-10-2002 declatmg incorue of Rs.3,18,400/- and ^gricultural incoiae of Rs.36,000,^ - along with audit report under ^ectioa 44AB. The retum was pn^cessed under Section 143 (1) sjid 1 4.ssessee. was granted refund of I^s.8,22,380/-. The assessee is a <t:onta-actor and deals with coal trarl |Ie clsimed depreciation at highei^ .^fter issuin.g notice to the asses^ee, fhe Assessing Officer, as per [•ircular No.652 issued by the Centl the Board'l aflowed depreciation • assessee to the tu: sportation work on contract basis. rates tttaa allowable as per Act. lepreciation claimed ®.40%. On appeal by the assessee, ^ssessee with foUowing obsenration^ "During fhe course. of ap|3eUa.te proceedings fhe appellant also filed copy ofc<jintract order 26.12.2002, issued bv Jindal Steel & Pow| of fhis contract oixier, it is s4en that the conti'act. was in regard to traiisportation o^ Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Ra| ius contract of trausportatiofa ofcoal frod coal iniues ral Boai-d of Direct Taxes 'for short 25°'d on the transport vehicles he ofRs.22,40,655.75/- ia place of he CI'T(A) aUowed the claim of the er Ltd. On plain reading coal froxn Coal iniu.es to ;arh. In order toexecute 4- di'1 K M Ws sS^ ^^ -^wwi, w-Qfwve, mviw^.^. ^•' ^' s^^ti^r ai^f'qii^'iw OTTSiI^O^N; wnm ^fitff si'tw -^ snaWJh •WW ^ f8Tzt 'rfsng? ^stRmsn^a to Jiadal Steel & Power Ltri.J Raigarh by usiag vehicles was the tenns of the contj'act. Thus assessee has used Tippers iu transportia^ goods to tbe destination. Thus assessee's claim of hig|ier rate of depreciation on Tippers faUs wifhin the pi^rview of CBDT's circiilar No.652 dt. 14th Jime 1993 ahd circiilar No.609 dt. 29*h t-se facts, this ground of •July 1991. In view of fh| appeal is, therefore, aBowed. However, the appcat prefe^red by tfae Revenue was further Idisiaissed bv the Tribunal with aii observation (hat on the facts ofth.e case on record we are sa.tisfied IRiat the assessee is engaged ia the |tsusiaess of trac.sportij'ig the goops to various places on hire. The Inature of tbe business done by tli.e assessee is of traasport busmess, not eagaged on faire and fhus, for higher rate of depreciation. the Ld CIT' (A1 to allow the assessee bence, the assessee is entitlecS Therefore, we uphold fhe order ofj the hiRher ra.tc of deprecia.tioa. Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, jeamed coiuisel for fhe appeUant/ Reveaue subiuits that the asse^isee einployed the fa-ucks for the puiposes of his o\vv. contract woijk and the vehicles in question were for the piuposes of depreciation, concluding part of circiilar No.6$2 dated 14th Jiuie 1993 would be cable in fhis case which clea^ly stipulates that the highcr rate of depreciatioji., however, wffl not ap^)Iy if tb.e niotor buses, inotor lorries, ete/, are used in sonie other noa- Irmgbusiuess ofthe assessee. XI- 3H^i '951 ftflife WiTSntnWlW I- ^••^- ^^ •<<!'LII«AI, ^til-H'i^, fs^ngyi ".k ^ FfWlTC fl<t? 3I^?F •^ ?^\ I— ^Plfe^h'Wre? ^'1^A ^SRgR ^aifwsn^r On the other hand, Shr| Paxag Kotecha, learaed counsel for the respondent would argue fb.^.t both the appeUate Tribunals have reconled findiag offact tha.t th|e vehicles employed by the assessee were engaged ia traasportation. buslness. Relying upon fhe judgnjient in fhe matter of Commissioaer of lucome-tax Versus 8.C. Tb^kur Ss Sros. {(2009) 180 Taxman 348 (Boia.)}, he argued fhat where ^he motor lorries used by fhe assessee in his own business of traiispotrtation of. goods on hire, ia tbat case, higher rate of depreciation wc^uld E>e appUcatole as per CBDT s circulsr Nos. 609 aad 652 dated E9dl July 1991 and 14th June 1993 respectively. We have heard learaed ^ounsel for fh.e parties. We have perused the findiilgs i^corded by thegCIT (A) as well as fhe unpugned order passed by fhe Tribiinal. In the afoi^aaid judgnj.eat, dealing in identical situation, the Bonibay High Coiirt after coJQsidering the aforesaid circulars of the Board held that higher rate 'of depreciation is also adinissible when iiiotor lony is used by assesseje ia his own business of transportation of loods on hire. are ui respes and accordingly, consideriag tigreem.eiit with the view taken by fhe Hon'ble Boiabay High Court i^ fhe case of S.C. Thahur & Bros. (Supra) iie finding oftact recorded bv fhe CIT I'A) aiid the Tribunal, we are oftl^e opinion rliat fh.ey were right in holding m 1+ w 'Sf ';:?iraRTq, (Si-yl<-l<!6, fetRT^,^ ^r^o...^..:...^J^O.ti a^ ^aq? C^^sr s^v w !<-(i<* •asns'i^iwtiw TOiiW'Hita an^i -5-L 'Bmfwftf ww&* fe^ ^T^R '^sffimsn^i ftiat tbe assessee was entitled |for higher late of depreciation @ 40% o fhe tippers used by it. In view oftlie fuidixig of^ct recorded by the forums below, we a of the. opiiuon fhat no srtbstautial question of law arises f adjudication of this appeal. There is no subatance iaj tbis appeal, fhe saine deserves to be an _is accordiagly disimssed. Sd/- —~ Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd,/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge :^1,H;