1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question relating; to the assessm ent years 1975-76 and 1976-77 for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the three trucks?"
2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the assessee-firm came to be constituted under a partnership deed, dated October 6, 1973. It consisted of seven partners, Sarvasri Moti Lal Agarwal, Anand Agrawal, Anil Agarwal, Pradeep Agarwal, Prem Ji Agarval, Murari Swaroop and Subhash Godbole. The firm was constituted to carry on transport business in the name and style: "Messrs Nav Dur ga Transport Company". Whereas, the first four partners contributed capital of Rs.600, Rs.700, Rs.600 and Rs.1,100, respectively, the other three partners brought their trucks into the firm as their contribution. The firm appointed three agents under three separate agreements for the supervision, control and plying of the vehicles. The three vehicles were shown as the assets of the firm in its balance-sheet.
3. Whereas, the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the assessee to get depreciation under section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act"), on the ground that the assessee failed to satisfy the requisite conditions that it owned and used the trucks, the Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee, holding that the three trucks became the assets of the firm and they were used through the agents by the assessee-firm.
4. This is how the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the assessee owned and used the three trucks and it was entitled to depreciation tinder section 32(1) of the Act.
5. The Tribunal as a last fact-finding body categorically recorded a finding of fact that all the three vehicles became the assets of the firm and, as such, they have been used through agents by the firm and the income from the three vehicles were credited in the books of account of the assessee-firm. No doubt, the registration continues in the name of three partners, who initially acquired the vehicles.
6. As registration cannot be made in the name of the firm, the registration continued in the name of the three partners, who initially owned the vehicles.
7. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered view that the Appellate Tribunal rightly reached the conclusion that the assessee owned and used the three vehicles within the meaning of section 32 of the Act.
8. We, therefore, answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.