M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA

At the time of hearing the registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 32 days. The assessee 1. ITA No.195/Kol/2021 AY 2014-15 Price Water House Coopers P.Ltd

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that, the sole grievance of the assessee is challenging the validity of jurisdiction

Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in providing consultancy, accounting and advisory service. E-return of income for the AY 2014-15 filed on 28-11-2014 declaring total income at Rs.59,51,72,921/-. The return was revised on 31-03-2016 declaring income at Rs.69,53,53,702/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS(Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) followed by serving of notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Various information called for and after considering the same the assessment was completed on 30-10-2018 assessing the income at Rs. 75,16,99,450/-.

Consequently, the ld. PCIT after going through the assessment records observed that certain issues remained to be examined by the ld. AO. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued u/s. 263 of the Act. Necessary submissions were made by the assessee and after considering the same, the ld. PCIT held the order dt. 30-10-2018 of the ld. AO as erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue with regard to certain issues observed/raised in the said show cause notice and thereafter, gave direction to the ld.AO to frame fresh assessment after considering the following issues:-

Thereafter, the ld. AO to the direction given in the impugned order dt. 24-03-2021 acted and passed an assessment order on 30- 03-2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Out of the above stated three issues the ld. AO made the addition/disallowance only on account of following two issues:-

Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to a rectification order passed by the ld. PCIT on 12-04-2022 and the following words appearing in para 5 of the impugned order has been deleted, which reads as under:-

From the above, it is noticed that out of the three issues referred in the impugned order the live issue remaining is regarding excess claim of depreciation on electrical installation at Rs. 6,50,000/-.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation at 15% and enquiry was made by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceeding and the assessee duly replied for/responded the same. The Tax auditor has also certified the claim of assessee of charging depreciation @ 15% as against @ 10% on electrical installation. The Ld. Counsel referred to plethora of judgments and in support of which filed case laws paper book (running from page 1 to 147) dt. 08-02-2022, another case laws paper book dt. 14.6.22.

Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting detailed finding of the Ld. PCIT.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and also carefully gone through the plethora of judgment referred and relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in two case laws paper books filed before us. The assessee has challenged the revisionary proceedings carried out by the Ld. PCIT directing the ld. AO to examine the claim of depreciation on electrical installation in the direction given in the impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. We find that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% whereas Appendix-1 of I.T Rules r.w. s 32 of the I.T Act, 1961 provides for depreciation @ 10% in respect of electrical installation. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the 6. ITA No.195/Kol/2021 AY 2014-15 Price Water House Coopers P.Ltd

During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked to demonstrate as to what enquiry was done/made by the ld. AO and what reply/response was submitted by the assessee. It is well evident that an enquiry is set to be complete only when all the issues relevant to such enquiry are addressed in its entirety. With the assistance of the ld. Counsel for the assessee on perusal of records, we find that the ld. AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) on 27-10-2017 and at point 6 asked the assessee to justify the claim of depreciation at higher rate/higher rate for claim of additional depreciation with proper explanation and documentary evidence. In reply, on 15-11-2017 the assessee stated to refer clause xviii of the Tax Audit Report, which is already submitted before the ld. AO having details of each asset/block asset. The above reply given by the assessee to the query raised by the ld. AO “ is neither here nor there”. The assessee has not provided the details relevant to the assets, which it is claiming as part of plant & machinery. The assessee itself accepted that electrical installation are chargeable to depreciation @ 10%, but claimed the same at higher

The ld. Counsel for the assessee merely kept referring to the decision that an enquiry was made by the ld. AO and section 263 should not have been invoked. We, however, find no merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assesse with regard to the issue of claim of depreciation on electrical installation because though the inquiry was initiated, but the same was incomplete as the assessee did not reply to it in the way it ought to be. Therefore, in real terms, there was no enquiry on the said issue. We, therefore, confirm the findings of the ld. PCIT on the said issue of excess claim of depreciation on electrical installation and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act on this issue.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed