SUNNY DESERTS P LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 24(1), DELHI

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the solitary issue in the present appeal is that the assessee's claim of depreciation has been denied by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The ld. Counsel referred to the computation of income at pages 2 and 3 of the paper book to show assessee’s claim of depreciation in AY 2012-13 and also referred to the returns of income for AY 2011-12 and AY 2013-14, wherein the claim of depreciation was made, which was allowed to the assessee in the preceding assessment year as well as in the immediate succeeding assessment year. He further referred to the order of the CIT(A), wherein the CIT(A), while denying the benefit of depreciation, observed that the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidence, computation or working substantiating the claim of depreciation u/s. 32

Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the department vehemently relied on findings of the CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The limited issue in present appeal for consideration is denial of assessee’s claim of deprecation u/s.32 of the Act. A perusal of documents on record reveal that the assessee has claimed depreciation u/s.32 of the Act in the computation of income as well as in the return of income. The CPC has rejected assessee’s claim without assign any reason, though, the details were furnished by the assessee along with return of income. The assessee’s claim of depreciation has been allowed in the immediate succeeding assessment year as well as preceding assessment year. Once, the block has been identified and the claim of assessee has been allowed in the past, there is no justifiable reason to deny depreciation in the later assessment year.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.