JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE assessee complains that the Revenue has illegally declined deduction on account of depreciation in the value of the truck purchased by it on 11th March, 1992. It claims that the case raises a substantial question of law and the orders passed by the AO, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal be set aside.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the asst. year 1992 93. On 11th March, 1992, the assessee purchased a truck for an amount of Rs. 2 lacs from Jiwan Lal. This money was "routed back" to the appellant and the truck was ultimately transferred to Anupam Kumar, brother of the seller. On examination of the evidence the AO disallowed the appellant's claim with the finding that the purchase of the truck was a device to avoid payment of tax. This finding has been affirmed by the CIT(A) as also the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal. The solitary contention raised by Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant is that the authorities have erred in disallowing the claim of depreciation made by the appellant. Mr. Sawhney appearing for the Revenue submits that the orders are legal and valid. He submits that on examination of the evidence the authorities have recorded a finding of fact that the amount of Rs. 2 lacs had come back to the assessee within a week of its purchasing the truck and that the truck had gone back to the family of the seller after some time. Thus, it was a device to save tax. It has also been contended that the present appellant viz., M/s Mittal Belting and Machinery Stores had not filed any appeal before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal. The appeals had been filed by the proprietor. Therefore, the present appeal by the company/firm is not maintainable.
(3.) IT is undisputedly true that the truck was transferred in the appellant's name on 11th March, 1992. It is also correct that an amount of Rs. 2 lacs had been paid by cheque to Jiwan Lal, the seller of the truck. However, it is not disputed that on 16th March, 1992, the amount of Rs. 2 lacs had come back to the assessee as an interest free deposit. Thereafter, in due course of time the truck had also been transferred to the brother of the seller. On these facts the Revenue has drawn a possible conclusion. In doing so, it has committed no error of law.;