ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20
Sh.Ankur Nahar Vs. CIT, NFAC, / ITO, 55, Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara, Bhilwara. Rajasthan. [PAN:ABUPN8405H] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 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.
I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Year: 2019-20
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.
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.”
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
I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2019-20
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:
I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2019-20
I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2019-20
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
I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Year: 2019-20
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.
I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Year: 2019-20
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no. ITA 174/Jodh/2022 is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 06.12.2023 at Amritsar, Punjab in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.
