R.K. Gulati, J.@mdashThis writ petition is directed against an order dated 22-6-1988 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad u/s 264 of the
income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act''). By the impugned order the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had raised two
contentions before the Commissioner which were considered. The first contention was in respect of unexplained investment in 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 Commissioner, hence, this petition. The learned counsels
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 ITO had given for the first time a temporary permit for the period 14-4-1976 to 13-8-
1976. For the petitioner it was urged mat the findings recorded by the Commissioner are misconceived and are based 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, State v. Sugeer Kumar [Original Case No. 138 of 1976, dated 16-1-1984]. The
said case was instituted u/s 112/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 27th March, 1976 on the allegation that the petitioner was found plying the
vehicle without permit. Relying upon this document the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the bus in fact was plied prior to the end of the
previous year, i.e., 31-2-1976 relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 with which the case concerned itself.
2. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner reveals that the Commissioner 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 Commissioner. 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 the material which has 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 in 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 in this score.
3. 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. In the result,
the writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned order to the extent it concerns the depreciation allowance is quashed. The Commissioner is
directed to restore the petitioner''s revision to its original number and decide the claim for the depreciation afresh in the light of the observations
made above and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.