KRIPASHANKAR PARMAR L/H LATE SHRI DEVKARAN PARMAR,VILLAGE FARAD, KALAPEEPAL SHAJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that income was assessed based on JCB operations and that depreciation is normally allowable. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of undisclosed income from JCB operations. The assessee argued that depreciation on the JCB should have been allowed, a claim not made before the AO but raised before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on a JCB machine when income from its operations was brought to tax, and if so, whether the assessment should be reopened for this purpose.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against
order of the CIT(A), Ujjan dated 27.6.2017 for the
[ITA 615/Ind/2017] [Kripashankar Parmar, Shajapur] assessment year 2009-10. The only ground raised by the
assessee reads as under:
“The Learned A.O. erred in making addition of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of undisclosed money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. The facts in brief are that case of the assessee was
reopened and the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was
framed vide order dated 10.8.2016. Thereby, the A.O.
made addition of Rs.3 lakhs on account of the income from
JCB operations. Against this, the assessee preferred an
appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the
submissions confirmed the addition. Ld. Counsel for the
assessee submitted that there is no dispute with regard to
the fact that the addition has been made in respect of
income from JCB operations. However, the authorities
below failed to consider that assessee was entitled for
depreciation on JCB. The authorities below ought to have
allowed the claim of depreciation. He submitted that a
[ITA 615/Ind/2017] [Kripashankar Parmar, Shajapur] specific request was made before the Ld. CIT(A) for giving
allowance of depreciation. In support of this, he has drawn
our attention to the submission made before the Ld. CIT(A).
Per contra, Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and
submitted that the assessee had not disclosed income from
operation of JCB. The income was estimated on the basis
of the statement given before the A.O. The assessee had
not made any claim for depreciation before the A.O.,
therefore, he submitted that now the assessee cannot be
allowed depreciation. Moreover, the assessee has not taken
any specific ground in this regard.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the
materials available on record and gone through the orders
of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard
to the fact that the income has been assessed on the basis
of the income derived from operation of JCB machine. It is
also the undisputed fact that no ground for claim of 3
[ITA 615/Ind/2017] [Kripashankar Parmar, Shajapur] depreciation is raised by the assessee except a submission
was made before the Ld. CIT(A) and oral submission before
this Tribunal. Considering the fact that income has been
attributed to the operation of JCB machine, under the
normal circumstances, the assessee is entitled for
depreciation on such machine. We therefore, considering
the totality of the facts and in the interest of principles of
natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restore
the assessment to the file of the A.O. to make a fresh
assessment after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 24 .01.2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Indore; �दनांक Dated : 24/01/2019 VG/SPS 4
[ITA 615/Ind/2017] [Kripashankar Parmar, Shajapur]
Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order
Assistant Registrar, Indore
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026