The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Tracstar Investments Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1541 OF 2005 IN WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.554 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant.Vs.M/s. Tracstar Investments Pvt. Ltd...Respondent.Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.Ms. Y.D. Ghawale i/by Roys Law Firm for theRespondent.CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008.PC :1. There is a delay of 86 days in preferring theappeal. There is affidavit in support showing cause,has been filed.2. Heard parties. Considering the cause shown the samewould amount to sufficient cause. Hence, delaycondoned. Office to register the appeal.(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I. REBELLO, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.554 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s. Tracstar Investments Pvt. Ltd. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Ms. Y.D. Ghawale i/by Roys Law Firm for theRespondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question of law. other material to show that the asset was used for any other purpose. . The second relevant finding of fact is that the A.O. has allowed the depreciation on the basis of the asset being used for the business purpose. 3. The only question which arises is whether thedefinition requires that the property has to be usedcontinuously for the purpose of business. The Tribunalby considering the provisions and the facts of the casearrived at the conclusion that there is no suchrequirement. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Madras Vs. AjaxProducts Ltd. (85 ITR 741) to hold that the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly imposes the obligation. . To decide the issue we may reproduce Section 2(ea)(3) which reads as under. "any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him." . It would be clear from the perusal of the provisionsthat the house must be occupied for the purpose ofbusiness or profession, for the relevant assessmentyear. Does the expression ’use’ is usage for a limitedperiod or continuously is the question. In our opinion,considering the language, on a literal interpretation ofthe provision or by any other method of interpretation,it is not possible to hold that there must be continuoususer considering that the provision is found in a taxing assets. Considering the above finding the appeal must be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)