Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee initially claimed depreciation of Rs. 20,19,67,049/- instead of Rs. 30,19,67,049/-, resulting in a short claim of Rs. 10 crore. The assessee filed a rectificatory application u/s 154, which was rejected. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly observed the factual mistake and restored the matter to the AO. The appeal filed by the Revenue was considered not maintainable.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to verify and allow a claimed depreciation amount, due to a factual mistake, is maintainable.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(3), 154, 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
(Assessment Year: 2015-16) Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Dy. CIT, Circle 4(1) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Yule House,8, Chowringhee Square, 8th Floor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Vs. Room No.23, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT1122C Assessee by : Shri Anup Sinha, AR Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT Date of hearing: 13.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 17.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 20.03.2023 for the AY 2015-16.
The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of ld. CIT (A) allowing the appeal of the assessee.
The facts in brief are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Lubricating oils, Greases and Wind Power. The assessee filed the return of income on 23.11.2015, declaring total income at ₹214,71,41,320/- under the normal provisions of the Act, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income on 29.12.2016. Thereafter the assessee found that due to inadvertent
The ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-
“6. Decision 6.1 Ground No.1: The assessee stated that assessee has return back depreciation of Rs.30,90,67,049/- however in the computation of business income the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.20,19,67,049/-. Thus the assessee claimed lesser depreciation of Rs.10 crores. 6.1.1 The AO CPC-TDS rejected the assessee’s application u/s.154 on the ground that the same is a fresh claim. 6.1.2 In my opinion if the assessee’s claim is not accepted then assessee would be taxed at a figure which would be higher than its actual taxable income. The constitution of India provides that not a single penny should be collected from any person unless it is due. 6.1.3 In view of the above, the AO is directed to verify the claim of assesee and allow correct amount of depreciation. 6.1.4 This ground of appeal is allowed.
Against this order of ld. CIT (A), the Department come in appeal challenging the said order, whereby the ld. AO was directed to verify the claim and allow the same if factual mistake is there.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we are unable to understand as to how the appeal of the Department is maintainable. The ld. CIT (A) correctly observed the factual mistake on the part of the assessee and restored the matter to the file of the ld. AO to verify the claim of the assessee and allow the correct amount of depreciation which was corrected by the ld. AO after examining the facts presented by the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable and same is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2025.