Facts of the Case

The assessee, Arihant Exports Ltd., was engaged in the business of financing and leasing. During Assessment Year 1994-95, the assessee purchased gas cylinders from M/s Modern Steel Trading Company, Bhavnagar, and transported them through M/s Orient Transport Company to M/s Pooja Gases, Ghaziabad, to whom the cylinders were leased.

The assessee claimed depreciation on the leased gas cylinders.

During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that M/s Modern Steel Trading Company was allegedly not available at the stated address. Relying upon the statement of the proprietor of M/s Pooja Gases and treating the arrangement as a paper transaction, the Assessing Officer held the transaction to be non-genuine and disallowed the depreciation claim.

The CIT(A) initially confirmed the disallowance. However, after fresh evidence was produced and the matter was remanded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the CIT(A) re-examined the issue and accepted the assessee’s claim. The CIT(A) found support from proceedings involving another taxpayer, Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, where transactions involving the same supplier and transporter had been investigated and both entities were found to exist. It was also found that the cylinders physically existed with the ultimate lessee.

The ITAT affirmed the findings of the CIT(A), leading to the Revenue’s appeal before the Delhi High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether depreciation on leased gas cylinders could be denied on the allegation that the purchase and lease transaction was merely a paper transaction.
  2. Whether the existence of the supplier, transporter, and leased assets was sufficiently established to justify allowance of depreciation.
  3. Whether the findings of the ITAT suffered from perversity warranting interference by the High Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)

The Revenue contended that:

  • The ITAT failed to properly appreciate the independent inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer.
  • The Assessing Officer had found that the supplier, M/s Modern Steel Trading Company, was not available at the stated address.
  • The lease arrangement was merely a paper transaction lacking commercial substance.
  • Depreciation should not be allowed because the underlying transaction was not genuine.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

The assessee argued that:

  • Fresh evidence demonstrated that the supplier and transporter were genuine entities.
  • Proceedings conducted in the case of Shri Vinod Kumar Jain involved identical parties and established the existence of both the supplier and transporter.
  • The gas cylinders physically existed and were available with the ultimate lessee.
  • Once ownership and actual existence of the leased assets were established, depreciation could not be denied.

Court Findings

The Delhi High Court observed that:

  • The proceedings relating to Shri Vinod Kumar Jain involved the same supplier and transporter, and those inquiries had established their existence.
  • The stock records of the ultimate lessee reflected the existence and leasing of the gas cylinders.
  • The physical existence of the cylinders stood established.
  • There was no merit in the contention that the lease agreement was merely a paper arrangement.
  • The findings recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the ITAT were findings of fact based on material available on record.
  • No perversity or legal infirmity was shown in the ITAT’s order.

The Court further noted that where, on identical facts, similar transactions had been accepted as genuine and depreciation had been allowed, there was no justification for treating the assessee’s transaction differently.

Court Order

The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the ITAT and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

The Court held that depreciation on the leased gas cylinders was allowable as the existence of the supplier, transporter, and leased assets had been satisfactorily established.

Important Clarifications

1. Physical Existence of Asset is Crucial

Where the existence of the leased asset is established through records and evidence, depreciation cannot be denied merely on suspicion.

2. Findings of Fact Carry Significant Weight

The High Court ordinarily does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and ITAT unless such findings are shown to be perverse.

3. Consistency in Treatment of Similar Transactions

When identical transactions involving the same parties have been accepted as genuine in related proceedings, such findings can be relevant in determining the genuineness of another transaction.

4. Depreciation Cannot Be Denied Solely on Initial Doubts

Subsequent evidence establishing ownership and existence of the asset can validate the depreciation claim.

Sections Involved

  • Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Depreciation
  • Provisions relating to assessment and admissibility of depreciation on leased assets.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2011:DHC:11885-DB/AKS16092011ITA3492010_142051.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.