SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KUDAL

ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are 5 appeals under consideration. All the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common orders of the CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur dated 28.08.2019 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 and dated 04.09.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Preliminary Issue - Condonation of Delay 2. All these appeals are filed with the delay of 3 days except the one (ITA No.1846/PUN/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11) where the delay is 4 days. The assessee filed the condonation request in an affidavit form giving the reasons of travelling and the non-availability of the buses as the reason in these covid days. The assessee could not reach the office in time on the last Friday. Therefore, appeal is filed on Monday with the delay of 3/4 days.

-2- to 1849/PUN/2019 3. Considering the above reasons given by the assessee in the affidavit, I find it is a fit case for condoning the delay. After condoning the delay, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. Since the grounds are common in all the appeals, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the grounds raised by the assessee in 2009-10 are reproduced hereunder :- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was correct not allowing depreciation under section 32 r.w.r. 5 appendix II table of Depreciation as provided at Sr. No. 4 of Part A-1 Building on the addition of Rs. 5,19,192 made during the financial year, for want of original bills when books of accounts are audited and details of expenditure are made available.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Assessing Officer was correct in arriving at conclusion that addition to building during the year is not eligible for depreciation, ignoring the fact that premises of assessee was surveyed u/s 133A and it was duly noted and physically verified during survey that assessee had incurred expenditure upon erection temporary tourist rooms of wooden and bamboo huts. Further it is requested that: -

1. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.

2. It is prayed that the above claims and allowance be allowed.”

5. Before me, none to represent the assessee despite service of notice by the ITAT. Therefore, these appeals are being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing of the ld. DR.

6. Coming to the merits of the issue, I find that the issue raised in the aforesaid grounds relates to the “allowability of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect of assets of the Society”. On the face of order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the appeals are heard by the CIT(A) without having the attendance of the assessee directly or through his Representative. Based on the written submission, the appeals were heard against the assessee.