PARSOLI CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s Parsoli Corporation Ltd., B- Wing, 4th Floor, Shalimar Complex, Mahalaxmi Five Rasta, Paldi, Ahmadabad - 380007 [PAN : AABCP9030F] …………… Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Circle – 4(2)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Respondent ……………. Mumbai - 400020 Appearance For the Appellant/Department : None For the Respondent/Appellant : Shri Brajendra Kumar Date Conclusion of hearing : 06.04.2023 Pronouncement of order : 25.04.2023

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the (AY 2014-15) learned CIT(A) was highly unjustified in confirming the addition on account of loss on sale of various assets on which depreciation was allowed year after year amounting to Rs. 43,80,921/-.” When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf 3. of the Appellant. On perusal of record we find that the Appellant has filed paper book (running into 63 pages) which also contains the submissions filed by the Appellant before CIT(A). Accordingly, we proceed to examine and adjudicate the issues raised in the present appeal on merits after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative and after taking into consideration the material on record.

The relevant facts in brief are the Appellant filed return of income for 4. the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 18/09/2014 declaring loss of INR 52,82,646/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29/12/2016 determining taxable income at INR 2,15,75,708/- after making various additions/disallowances including disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss of INR 43,80,921/- claimed by the Appellant. Ground raised in appeal before CIT(A) challenging the aforesaid disallowance was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 04/10/2017. Therefore, the Appellant has carried this issue in appeal before us on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above.

We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and 5. perused the material on record. We note that the CIT(A) has, in paragraph 12.5 of the order impugned, noted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim since the Appellant had failed to establish that the corresponding asset were registered in the name of the Appellant and had also failed to provide any proof of operational control over such asset. Whereas the stand of the Appellant before

(AY 2014-15) the authorities below was that the Appellant had taken premises on rent and had incurred expenditure on fittings, fixtures, repairs and renovation which were capitalized in the books of accounts and in respect of which depreciation was claimed by the Appellant. The Appellant had vacated the aforesaid rented premises, and therefore, written off the written down value and claimed short term capital loss. The Computation of Depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Previous Year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15 (placed at page 34 of the paper-book) support the aforesaid contention of the Appellant. The written down value under the head ‘Office Premises’ which stood at INR 54,89,521/- stands reduced to ‘Nil’ as on 31/03/2014 after deletion of INR 11,08,600/- during the relevant previous year. Thus, resulting in short term capital loss of INR 43,80,921/-. We note that in the submission of the Appellant (reproduced at page 7 of the order impugned), it has been stated by the Appellant that all the relevant details and documents related to expenditure incurred and capitalized were placed before the Assessing Officer and that the Appellant has been allowed depreciation in respect of the same. The Appellant has also claimed that depreciation was allowed to the Appellant in respect of the capital expenditure in the preceding Assessment Years. However, the CIT(A) has simply rejected the ground raised by the Appellant stating that the Appellant has failed to furnish relevant details/documents of ownership/control of the assets without taking into consideration the aforesaid contentions raised by the Appellant. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Appellant is directed to furnish the details and documents in support of its claim before the Assessing Officer who shall adjudicate this issue afresh after giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In (AY 2014-15) terms of the aforesaid directions, Ground No. 1 is disposed off as having been allowed for statistical purposes.

In result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.

Order pronounced on 25.04.2023.