C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.@mdashThe sole question raised in all the appeals filed by the revenue is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
was justified in holding that the respondents/assessees, which are engaged in financing of vehicle purchases, are entitled to higher rate of
depreciation applicable to motor vehicles used in the business of running them on hire. Rightly or wrongly, the Assessing Officer allowed
depreciation at the rate of 20 per cent which is the rate applicable to motor vehicles used in business or profession by the assessees. When the
appeals came up for hearing in the earlier occasion, this Court expressed doubt about the correctness of the facts stated before the lower
authorities including the Tribunal and therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to conduct enquiry about ownership and nature of transaction
between the respondents/assessees and customers purchasing vehicle on availing loan from them. The Standing Counsel pointed out that pursuant
to interim order of this Court dated 30-11-2009, though notices were issued to some of the respondents, they declined to furnish details. We do
not think, there is any need to call for details from them, because this Court had occasion to consider the factual position in the case of motor
vehicle financiers in another batch cases decided, vide judgment of this Court in CIT v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (2008) 175
Taxman 13. It is seen from the said judgment that this Court has examined the true nature of the hire purchase agreement, lease agreement etc.
between the financiers and the vehicle owners and noticed that the transaction is a real loan transaction against security of the vehicle and what is
done is endorsement of hypothecation in the R.C. Book in terms of Section 51 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If the facts found in that
judgment are applied to the respondents herein in these cases, then the respondents are not entitled to depreciation u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (for short ''the Act'') because they were neither owners of the vehicle nor have they used the vehicle in their business or profession.
2. Counsel for the respondents/assessees have relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69 : 126
Taxman 149, where the Delhi High Court held that the assessees, which were engaged in the business of leasing out commercial vehicles, were
entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 40 per cent, as provided in item III(2)(n) of Part A of Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We
notice that this judgment is rendered by the Delhi High Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,
Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. M/s. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd., Bangalore, wherein the Supreme Court held that when hiring out or leasing out of
machinery itself is the business of the assessee, such hiring or leasing of machinery for use by the lessees would entitle the finance company to claim
depreciation. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that while the lessee company, using the machinery in the manufacture of goods, is entitled to
deduction of hire charges paid as revenue expenditure, depreciation on cost of machinery is available to the company which purchases the
machinery and hires out to the lessee company. We are in complete agreement with the above judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered on the
facts of that case, following the decision of the Supreme Court. However, before granting depreciation, the question to be considered first is
whether the assessees are owners of the vehicles, who have hired out or leased out the same to other persons for use in their profession or
business. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Department contended that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, none of the assessees
have produced the R.C. Book or any particulars to show that they are the registered owners who have given the vehicle on hire or made lease
arrangement entitling them to claim depreciation. In the decision of this Court above referred, we had occasion to examine the nature of
transactions in vehicle financing. We have noticed that though the transaction is styled as hire purchase agreement, it is nothing, but financing of the
vehicle purchase fully or partly and the vehicle is purchased and registered in the name of the borrower, who is entitled to depreciation at the
applicable rate depending on whether the vehicle is used in profession or let on hire. Keeping in mind the factual position which is not the same as
projected before the lower authorities even including the assessing authority, the assessees'' counsel submitted before us that ""the owner"" takes in
not only the registered owner, but the person in whose favour hypothecation agreement is entered into. We are unable to accept this contention
because the definition ''owner'' as contained in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') is as follows:
2(30) ""owner"" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor,
and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation,
the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
What is clear from the above is that the ownership of the motor vehicle is always with the registered owner and even in respect of motor vehicle
which is the subject-matter of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that
agreement shall be the owner. Admittedly, the respondents/assessees are neither the registered owners nor are they in possession of the vehicle.
On the other hand, they are only the financiers in whose favour hypothecation is endorsed in the R.C. Book in terms of Section 51(1) of the Act
which requires the registering authority to make an entry in the certificate of registration regarding the existence of hire-purchase, lease or
hypothecation agreement. However, Sub-section (4) of Section 51 states that before entering transfer of ownership in the R.C. Book of the
vehicle, the consent of the person in whose favour hypothecation, hire-purchase or lease agreement endorsed, is required.
3. On examining the decision of the Supreme Court above referred, the admitted position is that the leasing companies purchased the machinery
and retained their ownership during the period of lease and in that context, the Supreme Court declared their eligibility for depreciation because
leasing was found to be their business. So far as the decision of the Delhi High Court is concerned, there was no controversy on facts because the
vehicles were stated to be given on lease which means that the lessor retained ownership and the vehicles were leased out on collection of lease
rents only. In these cases, the respondents/assessees are only financiers engaged in financing of vehicles partly or fully and the amount repaid under
the agreement by the registered owner is essentially repayment of loan in instalment together with agreed rate of interest. We have explained in
detail the nature of transaction in the interest tax case referred above. If the respondents/assessees have only financed or purchased the vehicle and
the borrowers are the registered owners, then the respondents/assessees are not entitled to claim any depreciation because they are neither the
owners of the vehicle nor have they used the vehicle in their profession or business entitling them for depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Act. Similarly,
the repayment made by the borrowers are essentially repayment of loan amount with agreed rate of interest. Therefore, even if the purchaser, who
purchased the vehicle, with borrowed fund is running the vehicle on hire, as a business, such borrower is not entitled to deduction of entire monthly
instalments paid to the respondents because such payment does not represent hire charges or lease rental of the vehicle. On the other hand, in the
computation of borrower''s income, he is entitled to deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds and is entitled to depreciation if the vehicle is
used in the profession or business. 20 per cent depreciation granted in the case of respondent certainly would have led to depreciation being
allowed in the hands of not only the financier, but also in the hands of vehicle owners, which is a mistake. In any case, what is important is not to
look at the terminology used in the agreement such as hire-purchase agreement or lease agreement, but it is for the Assessing Officer to find the
true nature and character of the agreement and the arrangement between the financier and the vehicle owners. If it is found to be a loan transaction,
as found by this Court in the judgment above referred, then the respondents/assessees will not be entitled to depreciation much less higher rate
claimed by them and allowed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, if the vehicles are purchased by the respondents/assessees and retained their
ownership with registration in their name and the vehicles were either given on lease or given under hire-purchase agreement giving an option to the
hirer to purchase it after the payment of lease rentals or hire charges during the agreed period, then the respondents/assessees will be entitled to
depreciation at the higher rate. The Assessing Officer can easily find out the factual position because if the respondents/assessees have continued
as registered owners of the vehicle, they would have been involved in large number of compensation cases under the Motor Vehicles Act in which
case, they would have incurred large amounts towards the insurance of the vehicle and payment of compensation which would have been claimed
as deduction in the Income Tax assessment itself. In any case, we find no justification for the Tribunal to allow higher rate of depreciation without
verifying as to whether the respondents/assessees are even owners of the vehicle and are really leasing out the vehicles in hire-purchase agreement
as claimed. We, therefore, allow the appeals setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and remand the matter
for verification of factual position by Assessing Officers and to grant depreciation, if found eligible.
4. Even though notices sent were not returned in IT Appeal Nos. 675/09 and 1199/09, at our request, counsel appearing in the connected cases
took notice for the respondents. The issue involved in IT Appeal No. 675/09 is one and the same decided above and our judgment above referred
in the case of the assessee applies to this case also. IT Appeal No. 675/09 will stand allowed. So far as IT Appeal No. 1199/09 is concerned,
even though issue involved is same, ie., rate of tax on vehicles, the higher rate only alleged is withdrawn by the Assessing Officer by reopening the
assessment. Here again, we feel, if the findings of the officer after remand are in favour of the assessee, then the assessee is entitled to higher
depreciation. Consequently, challenge against reopening is only academic in nature. We therefore allow the appeal in the same lines, setting aside
of the orders of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for revision of assessment after enquiry as stated above.
