M/S V.S.CONTRACTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITA/132/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01041979200105 February 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the assessment order, which was part of the appeal documents, indicated that depreciation was claimed in a subsequent year. This implied that the assessee had either accepted the denial of depreciation for the assessment year 1988-89 or had successfully claimed it in a later year. Given the age of the case and the inability of the assessee's counsel to contact the client, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal if any surviving grounds existed. No specific finding was given on the entitlement to depreciation for AY 1988-89, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s V.S. Contractor & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The appeal concerned a claim for depreciation for the assessment year 1988-89, which was denied based on a CBDT Circular dated 30.08.1965. The High Court noted that the assessment order, appended as Annexure P-4, indicated that depreciation was claimed in a subsequent year. The assessee's counsel stated an inability to contact the client due to the case's age.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation for the assessment year 1988-89, notwithstanding CBDT Circular dated 30.08.1965? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought to claim depreciation for the assessment year 1988-89. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on CBDT Circular dated 30.08.1965, which apparently denied depreciation for that year. The High Court observed that the assessment order indicated depreciation was claimed in a subsequent year, suggesting the assessee may have accepted the denial for the year in question or shifted the claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 05.02.2020 M/s V.S. Contractor & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant-assessee. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.1108/Chandi/91, claiming depreciation for the assessment in year 1988-89 which was denied as it was not available in that year in view of C.B.D.T. Circular dated 30.08.1965. [2] In our considered opinion, the depreciation must have been claimed in the subsequent year and infact assessment order which is appended with the appeal as Annexure P-4, itself indicates so. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.07 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH {2} [3] Learned counsel for the appellant states that this is an old case and he is unable to contact the client. [4] In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal as not pressed with liberty to the appellant to revive, if something survives therein. [5] Since the appeal is dismissed, the pending application, if any, stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 05, 2020

pankaj baweja

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.07 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →