ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 174/JODH/2022Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 December 2023AY 2019-207 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's processing of the return under Section 143(1) was flawless as the excess depreciation was not claimed in the relevant reports. The assessee failed to provide evidence of a mistake or a rectification petition.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,32,325 in their return, but later argued they were eligible for Rs. 3,69,595. The excess depreciation of Rs. 2,37,270 related to an oil tanker was not claimed in the tax audit report or the return due to an alleged mistake.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can claim un-claimed depreciation in the return when it was not reflected in the tax audit report or computation, and if the CIT(A) has the power to rectify such omissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 32,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 22.11.2023Pronounced: 06.12.2023

ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, [in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’], order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y.

2019-20. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru, [in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds: “

l. Under the facts & circumstances of case tire CIT(A), NFSC has not considered the technical aspects of Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Under tire facts & circumstances of case the CIT(A), NFSC has wrongly allowed depreciation of Rs. 132325/- against claimed Rs. 369595/-.

3. Under the facts & circumstances of case the CIT(A), NFSC, if ground no. 2 not allowed than WDV for the year should be allowed to increase by such not allowed depreciation.

4. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.”

3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an individual capacity filed the return u/s 139(1) with tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act. In return, the assessee claimed depreciation Rs.132,325/-. The return was processed U/s 143(1) of the Act and only amount of Rs.2070/- was disallowed related to payment of PF and ESI as per provision of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal with the ground that assessee is eligible for depreciation amount of Rs.3,69,595/-. As per the assessee, in the tax audit report and in computation wrongly claimed the depreciation amount of Rs.132,525/-. The depreciation to the extent of Rs.2,37,270/- was not claimed in the return of income and in the tax audit report. The depreciation amount of Rs.2,37,270/- is related to the oil-tankerand wrongly the amount was not claimed in the return in computation and in the tax audit report. But in profit and loss account, the entire amount of depreciation u/s 32 amount to Rs.3,69,595/- is claimed. The assessee had not filed any rectification petition and not filed any revised return before the assessing authority. But the assessee claimed that the assessee is eligible for excess depreciation amount of Rs.2,37,270/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s plea and upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The ld. AR submitted the written submission which are kept in the record.

The ld. DR further vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The relevant paragraph of the appeal order page nos. 7 to 8 are extracted as below:

5.

On perusal of the documents, we find that the assessee has not claimed to excess depreciation amount of Rs.2,37,270/- in tax audit report or in computation. So, the processing of return u/s 143(1) is flawless. But in profit and loss account the assessee claimed this depreciation total amount of Rs.3,69,595/- including the excess depreciation Rs. 2,37,270/-APB page-7.The ld. CIT(A) had not rectified the assessee’s return on basis of the order of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) respectfully relied on the order of the CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), while dealing the issue of powers of the first appellate authority was as laid down the principle of law that the CIT(A) has plenary powers in disposing of appeal and the scope of his power is co- terminus with that the ld. AO and therefore, the CIT can do what the AO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do. The assessee claimed that the depreciation of Oil Tanker amount to Rs.2,37,270/- was not taken in return by mistake. As per the assessee under clause 18 of tax audit report the impugned amount was not inserted and the Charted Accountant had not put this impugned amount in the depreciation column by mistake. During hearing proceeding before the ITAT, the ld AR is not able to show any acceptance of rectification letter from the end of the auditor. There is no rectification petition u/s 154 before the ld. AO. The assessee simply challenged the intimation u/s 143(1) which the absolutely flawless and the ld. AO has accepted the return income except Rs.2070/- for payment of PF and ESI and processed the return accordingly. The ld. AR was unable to bring any evidence that the impugned amount was not taken due to mistake, or the Auditor had made the report wrongly. 5.1 We find that the ld. AO had correctly processed the return and the 143(1) within jurisdiction. We find no reason to intervene in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no. ITA 174/Jodh/2022 is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →