R.K.GULATI ,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated June 22, 1988, passed by the CIT, Allahabad, under S. 264 of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. By the impugned order, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had raised two contentions before the CIT which were considered. The first contention was in respect of unexplained investment in the purchase of a bus which was brought to tax in the hands of the petitioner. The second contention pertained to the depreciation claim in respect of the said bus which had been disallowed. On both the grounds, the petitioner's case was turned down by the CIT and hence this petition. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The claim for depreciation was disallowed on the ground that the bus had not been put to use in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, inasmuch as the RTO had given for the first time a temporary permit for the period April 14, 1976 to August 13, 1976. For the petitioner, it was urged that the findings recorded by the CIT are misconceived and are made ignoring the relevant material that was placed before him during the course of hearing. My attention was invited to annexure 4 annexed to the writ petition which purports to be a certified copy of the reply filed by Thana Incharge, Raniganj, dated January 16, 1984, in Original Case No. 38 of 1976, State vs. Sugeer Kumar. The said case was instituted under S. 112/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act on March 27, 1976, on the allegation that the petitioner was found plying the vehicle without a permit. Relying upon this document, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the bus in fact was plied prior to the end of the previous year, i.e., February 31, 1976, relevant to the asst. year 1976 -77 with which the case concerned itself.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the CIT reveals that the CIT has not addressed himself to the material that was alleged to have been filed before him contained in annexure 4 to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, there is no denial that the papers relied upon by the petitioner had not been filed in revision proceedings before the CIT. It is a salutary principle of law that if a decision is arrived at by a quasi - judicial authority or Court without taking into consideration material which has a bearing on the final decision, such decision is not liable to be sustained and is vitiated in law. For determination of the question whether the vehicle had been put to use during the relevant previous year entitling the assessee to claim depreciation, the material referred to in annexure 4 to the writ petition was very much relevant and ought to have been taken into consideration before reaching the final conclusion one way or the other. As the material relied upon by the petitioner was not taken into account in refusing the claim for depreciation, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score. Coming to the second point about the unexplained investment, in my opinion, the petitioner has no case. The petitioner had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. In these circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court.
(3.) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned order, to the extent it concerns the depreciation allowance, is quashed. The CIT is directed to restore the petitioner's revision to its original number and decide the claim for depreciation afresh in the light, of the observations made above and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.;