Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition by disallowing a portion of depreciation claimed by the assessee on mobile phones and televisions. The assessee claimed 60% depreciation, which the AO restricted to 15% based on a Kerala High Court judgment.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. It was noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings despite multiple notices, and no legal or factual counter to the lower authorities' decision was presented.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in restricting the depreciation rate on mobile phones and televisions from 60% to 15%.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI GS PANNU & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Heard and perused the record.
At the time of hearing, none has appeared. The record shows earlier also no one was appeared. The matter was earlier heard on 4.12.2023 but was subsequently released, and thereafter again
ITA No.- 6511/Del/2019 M/s Falcon Business Resources P. Ltd. notices were issued for 21.5.2024, wherein no one appeared. No more opportunity is justified.
Arguments of Ld. DR were heard.
It comes up that the Assessing Officer had made an addition by way of disallowance on account of difference in rate of depreciation upon Mobile phone and television which assessee had claimed at 60%. While Assessing Officer had restricted the same to 15% on the basis of Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 707.
However, before the CIT(A), the same was not countered by any other proposition of law, nor in the grounds raised before the Tribunal there is any averment of the Tax Authority below not considering the factual or legal aspect in regard to the issue.
In the light of aforesaid, the order of CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal is dismissed
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.06.2024