Cit vs Ballabgarh Refractories Ltd.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1332 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, CJ.

Before the Tribunal the question framed was as under:

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,93,465 out of a total disallowance of Rs. 17,00,252 on account of depreciation claimed despite the fact that the assessing officer had established through detailed investigation that the transaction involving transfer of assets (on which depreciation was claimed) between the holding company and the assessed (subsidiary company) was collusive?"

2. The Tribunal on appreciation of material placed before it arrived at a conclusion as under:

2. The Tribunal on appreciation of material placed before it arrived at a conclusion as under:

"Taking into consideration, the entire circumstances, the irresistible conclusion on which we arrive is that the ownership of the machinery under consideration vested with the assessed. The approach with which the assessing officer has proceeded is merely a result of his suspicion and these were surmises and conjectures in the formation of opinion by the assessing officer. Thus, the plea of collusion remains merely an allegation and has not been proved by the revenue. The onus that lay upon the revenue in this respect has also not been discharged. The Apex Court in Uma Charan Shaw v. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC) has held that the conclusion which is the result of suspicion cannot take place of proof. Keeping this principle in mind as well as the entire facts and circumstances, no error is found in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for allowing depreciation for use of machinery at Rs. 10,93,465 for use of machinery owned by it for a period of less than 182 days. There being no substance in the ground of revenue, the same stands rejected."

3. Thus, the Tribunal, inter alia, held that collusion was not proved. The issue in this appeal is one purely of facts. No substantial question of law arises and hence the appeal is dismissed.

3. Thus, the Tribunal, inter alia, held that collusion was not proved. The issue in this appeal is one purely of facts. No substantial question of law arises and hence the appeal is dismissed.