Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 22.11.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The Order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing order no ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047564381(1) dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kalyan has erred in passing an order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.10.2016 are bad in law.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, has erred in passing an order having Order No./DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047564381(1) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.11.2022 and the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kalyan has erred in passing an order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17 10 2016 has where the Assessee has taken one view with which the Commissioner of Income Tax has not agreed.
P a g e | Mr. Shrirang Nathuram Dokhale Vs. The CIT(A) NFAC 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC and the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred is holding that the deduction claimed under section 32 of the Act for the depreciation charged at 60% on Class of assets as Computers and software is incorrect.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeal), NFAC and the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in disallowing the part of the amount claimed as a deduction under section 32 for depreciation.
The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal
.”
2. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.32,29,000/- was filed on 30.09.2014. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.09.2015. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the medical profession. During the course of assessment the A.O noticed that assesse has claimed depreciation@ 60% on the color Doppler Machines namely, USG M/c- AKOLA_ Alpha -6 Colour and USG M/c- SLS-US- BAL-Voluson- E 6, with WDV of 11,38,685.79/- and 20,01,284/- totalling to Rs.31,39,969.79/-. Therefore, assesee has claimed depreciation @ 60% on these machines at Rs.18,83,982/-. In this regard, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why depreciation should not be allowed @ 40%. In response the assessee submitted that this is ultra sound machine loaded with computer hardware and various software. It is also submitted that the said machine cannot give result without computer application. The assessee also stated that he has been treating this machine constantly as computer due to its feature application and utility and the said machine is integrated with computer and software along with inbuilt data storage. Therefore, submitted that depreciation @ 60% should be allowed on the said machine. However, the A.O has not agreed with the submission of the assesee. The A.O stated that Color Doppler has been specifically and categorically categrorized under the category of plant and machinery,