GULATI STEEL FAB P.LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8269/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 August 2022AY 2010-113 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, noting that the AO's position on facts in the subsequent year was consistent with the assessee's claims. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation in the earlier years was reversed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on a boring machine, claiming the purchase was bogus. However, in a subsequent assessment year (2017-18), the AO conducted inquiries and made no such disallowance for the same machinery.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of depreciation on a machine is justified when the same was accepted in a subsequent assessment year after specific inquiry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Mathur, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R

The captioned appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 29.10.2018 and 29.05.2019 arising from order assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 143(3) r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.

2.

When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that depreciation of Rs.1,44,300/- claimed on old boring machine WDV Rs.9,62,000/- has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the purchase of the machinery is bogus. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the subsequent Assessment Year 2017-18, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and made requisite specific inquiries in this regard yet again which reads as under:

“Please furnish the details machinery purchased from M/s. Neel Kanth Steel and whether any depreciation was claimed on such machineries purchases during earlier years from M/s. Neel Kanth Steel.”

3.

In response thereto, the assessee replied and inquiries were also conducted by the Assessing Officer. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessment order dated 09.12.2019 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 wherein no disallowance was carried out on the depreciation claimed on the machinery purchased from M/s. Neel Kanth Steel. In this factual backdrop, the ld. counsel urged for reversal of disallowance in Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in question having regard to the factual position tested in the subsequent Assessment Year 2017-18.

4. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in the instant case, has acceded to the position on facts reported by the Assessing Officer. Thus, there is no warrant to take a wholly different position in other assessment years. The disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,44,300/- and Rs.1,22,655/- for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively are thus reversed.

4.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/08/2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →