Sadhana Nayyar Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai disallowed the claim of depreciation under section 32 since assessee failed to prove that car was used for the purpose of assessee’s business wholly or in part. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Facts- The assessee claimed to be involved in trading of medical goods and pharmaceuticals in the name and style of M/s. Hansraj Nayyar Medical India. It was found by learned assessing officer that the assessee purchased a new car for Rs. 11,80,474/- and claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,77,071/- on asset being a motor car (vento). The car was in the name of assessee’s husband Mr. Chetan Nayyar.
AO disallowed assessee’s claim of depreciation on the ground firstly, that the said car was not owned by the assessee as it was purchased in the name of her husband Mr. Chetan Nayyar. Secondly, that the car was not being used for the purposes of assessee’s business. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that the allowance of motor car expenses, insurance paid, etc. u/s. 37 of the Act, cannot automatically entitle assessee for the depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act as both the sections are mutually exclusive. The assessee has thus failed to prove that the car was used for the purpose of assessee’s business wholly or in part. Assessee is thus not entitled for the claim of depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act. The aforesaid point is determined in negative against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
