CLASSIC CITY INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 582/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 July 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all relevant evidence. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on fixed assets, but the Assessing Officer disallowed it for lack of details. The assessee later filed additional evidence with the CIT(A), which was not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee, and whether the depreciation claim was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi & Shri Mandar
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – DR
Hearing: 24/06/2022Pronounced: 07/07/2022

ORDER

Per S.S.Godara, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune’s order dated 03.09.2020 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-1/DCIT Cir-1(1)/PN/151/2014-15, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities of the action denying its A.Y. 2011-12 M/s.Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT (A) depreciation claim of Rs.7,20,869/- qua addition made to fixed assets’ schedule to the tune of Rs.72,08,962/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer had declined the same on account of the fact that the taxpayer herein had failed to file, all the corresponding details. It further emerges from a perusal of the case file and more particularly in the CIT(A)’s order in para 6 to 6.52 onwards that the assessee had preferred to file an application seeking admission of additional evidence dated 29.01.2016 alongwith the corresponding details [page 10 to 98 in the paper book] in the nature of bills, vouchers, and other particulars as well as payments made which have nowhere been considered in the impugned lower appellate order in light of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

3.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh detailed adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the condition that it shall be the tax payer’s risk and responsibility only to lead and prove all the relevant details/evidence(s) as per law. Ordered accordingly.

4.

Delay of one day in filing in instant appeal is condoned since falling in the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period.

A.Y. 2011-12 M/s.Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT (A) 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th July, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →