M/S. GUPTA SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 257/IND/2018Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 October 201910 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support its claim that the solar generators were purchased, installed, and put to use for business during the financial year 2012-13. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the Principal CIT's finding.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on a solar power generation system installed on March 26, 2013. The Principal CIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, finding the assessment order erroneous as prejudicial to revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the Principal CIT was justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263 due to the assessee's claim of depreciation on a solar power plant without sufficient evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Smt. Ashima Gupta, DR
Hearing: 10.10.2019Pronounced: 11.10.2019

Appellant by Written submission (NONE) Respondent by Smt. Ashima Gupta, DR Date of Hearing: 10.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 11.10.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Pr. CIT-1, Bhopal dated 2.2.2018 pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act by Pr. CIT is bad in law and deserves to be cancelled.

2.

That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in holding that the order of assessment passed by A.O. was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against revising the assessment order by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of jewellery, ornaments, precious stones, etc. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 3.3.2016. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT on going through the case records noticed that the assessee had commissioned and installed solar power generation system on 26.3.2013.

The cost of fresh project including land was Rs.9,77,72,500/- and claimed depreciation @ 40%. It was noticed that the invoice bill of solar plant from M/s. MNB Switchgear was dated 30.3.2013 that goes to show that plant was purchased after installation and it was being used in the business by the assessee. Therefore, Ld. Pr.

CIT by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act issued a notice on 27.12.2017 to the assessee calling upon as to why the assessment order should not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee filed written submission.

The Ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, he set aside the assessment order and directed the A.O. to reframe the assessment.

3.

At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is noticed that the assessee had sought adjournment on last day of hearing and also on 10.5.2019.

The assessee was aware of the date of hearing. We find that the assessee has filed a written submission received in the registry on 1.8.2019. Neither any person representing the assessee appeared nor has any request seeking 3

adjournment been filed. Therefore, the appeal is taken up in the absence of the assessee and to be decided on the basis of material available on record. Assessee filed written submission, which is reproduced as under:

4.

The Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the impugned order. Ld. CIT(DR) argued that there is no illegality in the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT. Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the assessing officer failed to examine this aspect and mechanically allowed the claim of depreciation.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record. The Ld. Pr. CIT has decided the issue as under:

6.

The contention of the assessee is that the A.O. has adopted one of the plausible view. It is stated that the solar generators were purchased during the financial year

2012-13 and also installed during the financial year 2012-

13.

It is also stated that these generators were put to use for business in the financial year 2012-13 itself. It is further stated that the assessee has made payment of the sale consideration within the financial year 2012-13 except a sum of Rs.59,48,030/- which was paid on 31.3.2013.

The assessee has not filed any evidence supporting this claim before us. In the absence of the requisite evidence in support of the claim that the solar generators were purchased, installed, put to use for business and the part payment of the same was also paid during the financial year 2012-13. We do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT. Ground raised in the appeal is dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in for the A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 11 .10.2019.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →