TAHILIANI DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CC-29, NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI
PER BENCH :
These are appeals by the assessee against the respective orders of ld.
CIT (A).
Although assessee has raised various grounds, however the issues
pressed in brief for each appeal have been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the
assessee as under :-
S.No. Appeal Number Assessment Detail of issues Amount Year involved 1 ITA 3107/Mum/2015 2008-09 Depreciation 43.32 lakhs 1. Depreciation – 2 ITA 5204/Del/2016 2012-13 62.21 lakhs Rs.31.25 Lakhs (arising out of AY 2008-09) 2. Section 40a)(ia) – Rs.1.48 lakhs 3. Cessation of liability – Rs.29.48 lakhs 3 ITA 65/Del/2020 2012-13 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 1. Depreciation 4 ITA 66/Del/2020 2013-14 - 36.25 lakhs Rs.28.10 lakhs (arising out of AY 2008-09) 2. Section 40(A) (3) – Rs.1.16 lakhs 3. Section 14A – Rs.1.51 lakhs
3 ITA No.3107/Del./2015 and 7 ors. 4. Repairs & maintenance – Rs.5.48 lakhs 5 ITA 67/Del/2020 2014-15 Depreciation (arising 25.27 lakhs out of AY 2008-09) 6 ITA 1938/Del/2020 2014-15 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 7 ITA 68/Del/2020 2015-16 Depreciation (arising 22.73 lakhs out of AY 2008-09) 8 ITA 1937/Del/2020 2015-16 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
It is noted that the first ground in ITA No.3107/Mum/2015 for AY
2008-09 is on account of disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets.
Brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment
proceedings, the assessee had shown addition of Rs.7,47,62,896/- to the fixed
assets on which it had claimed depreciation of Rs.79,03,293/-. AO asked the
assessee to file copies of relevant bills and vouchers in respect of the additions
to the fixed assets. However, the assessee was able to produce only a few of
the bills. AO, therefore, allowed the depreciation pertaining to the bills
produced amounting to Rs.31,26,361/- and disallowed the balance.
Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that he had also given chance
to the assessee to produce original bills but assessee filed only photocopies of
the bills. He held that no relief can be given to the assessee. As additional
evidences were only photocopies, ld. CIT (A) held that the same cannot be
admitted.
Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both
the parties and perused the records.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee pleaded that now the assessee is in
possession of all the vouchers which they have obtained with a great effort. He
4 ITA No.3107/Del./2015 and 7 ors. submitted that the assessee is seeking permission to file additional evidences in
this regard and requested that the issue may be remitted to AO to consider fresh
evidences and pass appropriate order. He further submitted that this issue has
cascading effect in ITA Nos.5204/Del/2016 for AY 2012-13, 66/Del/2020 for
AY 2013-14, 67/Del/2020 for AY 2014-15 & 68/Del/2020 for AY 2015-16.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee pleaded that in all these years, the adjudication for
ITA No.3107/Mum/2015 will have a bearing as decision in that case will be
cascading effect on the amount of depreciation for the respective years.
Upon hearing both the counsels and perusing the records, we are of the
opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the issue of additional
evidences now being submitted are remanded to the file of AO. AO shall
consider the additional evidences which the assessee have now claimed to have
obtained and thereafter decision as per law. Needless to say, assessee should
be provided an opportunity of being heard.
As regards other issues in the appeals mentioned in ITA
Nos.5204/Del./2016 & 66/Del/2020 for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively,
we note that adjudication of these grounds and remanding the ground relating
to depreciation to the AO will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, both
the counsels agre4ed that if the issue of depreciation is remanded to the file of
AO to consider afresh for passing an appropriate order, other aspects can be left
unadjudicated to be considered after the issue of depreciation is dealt with by
the AO thus the entire order is complete. We find ourselves in agreement with
the above proposition. Higher Courts have expounded that all grounds have to
5 ITA No.3107/Del./2015 and 7 ors. be adjudicated as otherwise part decisions will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, we direct that the issue of depreciation will be dealt with at the level of AO and other issues raised shall remain intact. Both the parties are at liberty to file the appeals if deem necessary, after the issue of depreciation is decided pursuant to this remand. 10. ITA Nos.65/Del/2020, 1938/Del/2020 & 1937/del/2020 for AYs 2012- 13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively are penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') relating to quantum appeals discussed above. Since the quantum issues are being remitted to the file of AO, we deem it proper to remand the consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also to the file of AO for giving consequent effect after the adjudication of the depreciation part. 11. In the result, all the appeals by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23RD day of February, 2023.
SD/- SD/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 23RD day of February, 2023 TS
6 ITA No.3107/Del./2015 and 7 ors. Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
