Judgment :- R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the assessee as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the security deposits received from broker (representing the hirers) is to be held as an Unexplained Investment under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Security Deposits collected through broker is to be treated as an Unexplained Investment under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the income from these vehicles which were let on hire have been treated as income from business of letting out of vehicles on hire. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not granting higher rate of depreciation on vehicles let out on hire when the income forms such vehicles have been assessed as income from business of letting out on hire of vehicles?" 2. The appellant/assessee is a company engaged in the business of hire purchase financing. For the assessment year 1990-91, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.12.1990 admitting the income as Rs.1,61,350/-. According to the assessee, the income of the assessee consists of income from hire purchase charges and income from leasing of vehicles. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment held that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation at higher rate, since the vehicles owned by them have not been let on hire. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.1,75,000/- in terms of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained income, as the assessee did not offer any explanation as to the receipt of the said amount. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal in respect of unexplained investment, but granted certain relief in respect of depreciation. 4. As against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee again pursued the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. 4. As against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee again pursued the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of the assessee that the amount alleged to be unexplained investment is nothing but security deposit given by the customers on the basis of lease. In this regard, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of individuals and the broker one Ibrahim and held that it was not a case of security deposit and the assessee have failed to cross examine the persons, who had given evidence. Further, the Tribunal came to hold that the intention of the parties was to sell the vehicle on instalment basis and the purchasers have made a clear statement before the Assessing Officer that they had purchased the vehicle on instalment basis and not taken them on hire. Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the addition made towards unexplained income. 6. With regard to the issue on the claim of depreciation, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partially granted the claim. The Tribunal has clearly held that the assessee is not the owner of the vehicle and at best they are entitled to recover the outstanding amount from the purchaser and the purchaser is entitled to claim depreciation. Hence, the Tribunal disallowed the claim of depreciation. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Case (Appeal). 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed on record. 9. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the amount collected by the assessee was towards the purchase price, as the vehicles were sold under hire purchase scheme, which was evident from the examination of the broker M.A. Ibrahim. It is also to be noted that the purchasers have stated that they had paid the amount towards purchase of vehicle in instalments and not for hire. Since the assessee had not given any explanation towards the receipt of amount, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, question of law Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 11. Since the assessee had not given any explanation towards the receipt of amount, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, question of law Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 11. With regard to the issue on depreciation, it is seen that the agreement between the parties did not contain any default clause to repossess the vehicle in question. As the assessee has no right to repossess the vehicle, the question of lease does not arise. Since, it is a clear case of sale of vehicle to parties coupled with a commitment to pay the amount in instalments, the question of granting depreciation does not arise. However, in respect of two or more vehicles, depreciation has been granted based on records. We are not concerned with that issue in this appeal. In such a situation, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the third substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 13. In the result, this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs.