Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the different orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short] commonly dated 05.01.2017 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in both the appeals, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
2 & 1167/PUN/2017 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in 2011-12 are stated herein. ITA No.1166/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 : 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 manufacturing of Gray Iron Casting & Pig Iron. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 28.09.2011 disclosing total income of Rs.52,47,29,279/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.73,26,54,700/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation and additional depreciation on TG-III [Turbo Generato (TG-3)] @ 80% under entry no.III 8(ix)(D) of the Part A of Appendix I and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished.
3 & 1167/PUN/2017 5. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing of appeal, the appellant filed an additional evidence along with application seeking permission for admission the same in an attempt to prove that the asset as claim was made is “Co-Generation System”. Since this is a purely engineering and technical matter, the additional evidence is relevant material to decide the issue in appeal. Thus, the additional evidence be admitted.
On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR has no serious objection for admission of the additional evidence.
In the circumstances, we admit the additional evidence and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue in the light of the additional evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the ground of appeal
raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in 2011-12 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.