DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2), PUNE

2 & 593/PUN/2019 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in 2013-14 are stated herein. ITA No.592/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2013-14 : 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of trading, assembly and sales service of hydraulic parts and equipment. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 29.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.13,97,23,090/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 25.11.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.14,15,41,420/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for depreciation on goodwill on the ground that the claim was not made in the return of income and the goodwill is already amortized in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.18,18,322/- on the ground that the addition on account of 3 ITA Nos.592 & 593/PUN/2019 provision made for the payment of legal professional charges, as the assessee had failed to deduct TDS u/s 194J of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the addition on the ground that asset in respect of which depreciation was claimed, was not found in the books of accounts. Similarly, on the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the appellant that the amount disallowed in the assessment year 2012-13, was paid during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2013-14.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

It is submitted that in the earlier years in which the claim was made, the issue of allowability of depreciation was remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, on identical lines, the issue in the present appeal may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer. The ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection to remand this issue to the Assessing Officer on similar lines.

We order accordingly with direction that the Assessing Officer shall examine the allowability of depreciation keeping in view the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 32 of the Act and also