KRIPASHANKAR PARMAR L/H LATE SHRI DEVKARAN PARMAR,VILLAGE FARAD, KALAPEEPAL SHAJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 615/IND/2017Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 January 2019AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agrawal, A.R
For Respondent: Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr.D.R
Hearing: 23.01.2019Pronounced: 24.01.2019

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).

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →