The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Niskalp Investment And Trading Co. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1884 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Niskalp Investment and Trading Co. Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr.Ajit Shah a/w.Dinesh Vyas for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. By consent of parties, appeal is taken up for hearing on admission. 2.The Tribunal, in paragraph No.5 of its order, has recorded a finding that; “Having carefully examined the order of the lower authorities in the light of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High Court, we find that assessee has purchased some assets and leased back to Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the said transaction was considered to be genuine in the hands of the lessee. Once the transactions are held to be genuine by the High Court of Rajasthan, in the case of lessee we cannot take a contrary view in the hands of the lessor. We, therefore, of the view that under these circumstances, the assessee is entitled for the depreciation as claimed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation as per law on the leased assets. the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High Court, we find that assessee has purchased some assets and leased back to Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the said transaction was considered to be genuine in the hands of the lessee. Once the transactions are held to be genuine by the High Court of Rajasthan, in the case of lessee we cannot take a contrary view in the hands of the lessor. We, therefore, of the view that under these circumstances, the assessee is entitled for the depreciation as claimed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation as per law on the leased assets. 3.The aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal is nothing but a finding of fact after appreciation of evidence and after taking into account the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of lessee. If the transaction is held to be genuine transaction in the hands of lessee, the view cannot be otherwise for considering the case of the lessee. In this view of the matter, the question of law sought to be raised in the appeal can hardly be said to be a substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.