THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR ITTA No. 333 of 2011 Dated: 10-10-2011 Between Priyansh Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam. …Appellant And The Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. …Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This is a misconceived appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, directed against the order dated 4-2- 2011 of the learned ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench rejecting ITA No. 297/Vizag/2009, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2004-05. The assessee is in the business of deep sea fishing with the help of Tuna Liners (deep sea fishing vessels) imported from Taiwan. For the Assessment Year 2004-05 it filed its return of income on 1-11-2004 declaring loss from business at Rs.1,63,47,722/-. The return was initially processed under Section 143 (1) on 3-3-2005 and thereafter the return was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 29-8-2005. The claim for depreciation in an amount of Rs.1,61,01,762/- for the year under consideration in respect of the two imported vessels, was disallowed. The assessee preferred an appeal and the same was rejected by the order dated 7-9-2007 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, on the ground that there was no transfer of ownership in favour of the assessee, of the two vessels in question, since the petitioner admittedly did not pay the value of the vessels to the original owner in terms of the agreement between the parties in view of Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties which records that in default of payment of total purchase amount, the agreement stands rescinded, the buyer shall cease to have any property or interest in the goods and the vendor shall be entitled to resell the vessels to others. The assess preferred a further appeal to the ITAT which confirmed the conclusions recorded by the primary and appellate authorities; that depreciation benefit was not available, as the agreement in respect of the vessels did not record the date of purchase; the purchase consideration also was not paid by the assessee to the original owner; and clause 5 of the agreement between the parties did not transfer title on the assessee. Since the assessee was concurrently found by the primary, appellate and further appellate authority on fact not to have any title on the two vessels in question, no depreciation is legitimately allowable and there is no error of law let alone a substantial error which calls for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 10th October, 2011 ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J GRR