SANDEEP KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), FARIDABAD

The appeal of the Assessee is against order dated 30/08/2017 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of Assessment Order dated 27/10/2016 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”] for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

Brief facts are that assessee filed return of income of Rs.41,29,030/- was filed on 28/11/2014. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 31/08/2015 was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 13/06/2016 and relevant details and documents were called for. The reason for selection of case in limited scrutiny was duly communicated to the AR on when he first appeared on change of incumbent. In compliance of notice, Sh. S. Kumar, Advocate, Authorized Representative for the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished written submissions and details. The assessee an individual during the relevant year had returned income under the heads Salary, House Property, Business & Profession, Capital gain and Other sources. On completion of assessment proceedings, addition of Rs.12,26,454/- was disallowed vide order dated 27/10/2016.

Appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 30/08/2017.

Being aggrieved appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with grounds as:- “a. That on the given facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in rejecting the claim of depreciation @ 15% on Hall and Sign Board, being used as tool of business. b. That the Ld. Commissioner Appeals was not justified in rejecting the claim of depreciation @ 15% on Hall and Sign Board used as tool of business on the grounds which were non-existent either in assessment order or in any pleading made or available in the appellant proceedings. c. That on the facts and law as applicable in the case, the Ld. Commissioner Appeals as well as Ld. Assessing Authority erred in disallowing the claim of depreciation @ 15% on Hall and Sign Board as being tool of Business and not building. d. That the addition of Rs.12,26,454/- being the disallowed depreciation on tool of business may be deleted.”