SAIDPUR JUTE COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE- 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

The sole grievance of the assessee in captioned appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 is the fact that depreciation claimed by the assessee at higher rate of 80% on certain capital asset has been denied by lower authorities.

Upon hearing, it transpires that AY 2014-15 is the first year of such claim and the appeal for that year is pending before learned first

The material facts are that the assessee claimed depreciation of 80% on all assets forming part of Solar Power Generating System. Though Ld. AO allowed higher depreciation on main items, however, such higher depreciation was denied on remaining items as done in AY 2014-15. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is in further challenge before us.

It is evident that AY 2014-15 is the first year of such claim and Ld. AO has followed the findings of AY 2014-15 in this year. Since the appeal for AY 2014-15 is already pending before learned first appellate authority, we deem it fit to restore this appeal also back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to take consistent stand in the matter. Needless to add that sufficient opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee before adjudicating the issue.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th August, 2021. (Vikas Awasthy) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; यदनांक Dated : 25/08/2021 Sr.PS, Dhananjay