INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3),, NASHIK vs. BHAIRAVNATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA ,, NASHIK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.389/PUN/2019 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO, Ward-1(3), Nashik. Vs. Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Krishnai Complex, Ganesh Peth, Sinnar, Nashik-422103. PAN : AAAAS6679L Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi : Date of hearing : 25.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 25.07.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nashik’s order dated 12.12.2018 passed in case no.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/474/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue raises the following twins substantive grounds in the instant appeal :- “1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in restricting the return of income to Rs.1,36,226/- instead of Rs. 17,08,047/- filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.12.2017. As per the Return of Income filed by the assessee on 11.12.2017 vide Acknowledge No. 330686711111217 is Rs. 17,08,047/- 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in deleting the addition by

2 ITA No.389/PUN/2019 Rs.7,77,387/- and restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.40,915/-, however, the facts is clear and also on the records that the assessee had shown excess WDV by Rs.8,18,302/- on building.” 3. There would be hardly any issue that the Revenue’s in instant former substantive ground raises purely a reconciliation issue of the assessee’s income declared in furtherance to section 148 notice which has been stated to have be wrongly taken in the CIT(A)’s order (supra). I thus deem it appropriate this former issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh verification and adjudication as per law. Ordered accordingly. 4. Next comes the latter issue of the written down value (WDV) amounting to Rs.8,18,302/- treated as excess during the course of assessment and restricted to Rs.40,915/- in the CIT(A)’s order as follows :- “6.0 Ground No.2 is directed against the addition of Rs.8,18,302/- on account of excess depreciation claimed by the appellant. 6.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, material placed before me and assessment order of the AO. On perusal of the same, it has been noticed that, while computing depreciation as per Income-Tax Act, the appellant has considered WDV of the building as on 1/4/2009 at Rs.84,41,927/- which was in fact Rs.76,23,625/-. The AO has made addition of Rs.8,18,302/-. In the reason recorded in concluding para, the AO has stated that, there was mistake on the part of the appellant to claim excess depreciation. In fact, the excess depreciation claimed on amount of Rs.8,18,302/- claimed by the appellant @ 5% works out to Rs.40,915/-. Therefore, the AO is not right in making addition of Rs.8,18,302/- and the appellant has further claimed that, the income of the appellant from the business of credit facilities to members shall increase by Rs.40,915/- and the same shall be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. In view of the above stated facts, the addition is restricted to the extent of depreciation claimed of Rs.40,915/- i.e. 5% of Rs.8,18,302/- and the same is added to the total income of the appellant. The appellant gets

3 ITA No.389/PUN/2019 relief of Rs.7,77,387/-. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. Ground No.2 is partly allowed.” 5. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the CIT(A) has already declined the assessee’s corresponding depreciation claim thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect. He has further restricted the impugned disallowance only to the extent of Rs.40,915/- i.e. @ 5%. The Revenue could hardly be held to be an aggrieved party therefore once the Assessing Officer’s impugned disallowance stands upheld in principle. This latter substantive ground stands rejected therefore. 6. This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced on this 25th day of July, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 25th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nashik. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.