Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10, primarily concerning the disallowance of depreciation and the rejection of a rectification application under Section 154. The assessee contended that intimation under Section 143(1) was not received, and the depreciation claim, though not fully supported by mandatory schedules, was reflected in computation and Balance Sheet, with system issues preventing full compliance.
Held
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance, held that the claim for depreciation on fixed assets is legal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of depreciation claim to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification. The AO is to allow the claim if the assessee is found entitled.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rectification application under Section 154 was valid given the assessee's claims of non-receipt of intimation and delayed knowledge. 2. Whether the depreciation claim should be allowed despite non-filing of specific schedules, considering it was reflected elsewhere and system issues were cited.
Sections Cited
Section 143(1), Section 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.03.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. Ld. CIT (Appeals) has not considered the mail reference no. CPC/0910/T13/1004200330 dated 06.05.2019 issued by the DCIT, CPC. The appellant requests before your lordship, please consider the same in which the word rectification order was stated twice. The same is enclosed. The appellant has not committed a mistake by considering the purported letter as rectification order.
2. The Ld. CIT stated that the period of 4 years has elapsed for making application under sec 154 of the Act. The appellant bags to differ on this account as Intimation under sec 143(1) for the assessment year 2009-10 were not received. The appellant noticed the demand one day when he opened his portal and immediately applied for intimation on portal and filed rectification application to CPC Bangalore. The sequence is as under: Date of opening the portal 20/3 / 2019 Date of receiving intimation 21/3 / 2019 u/s 143 on mail Date of making Application 25/4 / 2019 under section 154: Date of rejection 09/05 / 2019 Date of filing an appeal (Late 15/07/2019 by 37 Days and condoned Appeals) by the CIT (Appeals) Since the appellant feels therefore that period should be considered only after noticing the demand on portal as the should be considered as date of received of communication i.e. was issued by CPC on 21/3 / 2019 No chance of personal hearing was given.
3. Regarding disallowance of depreciation, Appellant before CIT (Appeals) stated as under: 3.1 That while filing the return of income the appellant did not fill in Schedule DPM (Depreciation of Plant and Machinery) and DOA (Depreciation of other assets) as the same was not mandatory in the year under review. Had these schedules were mandatory the assessee would have filled them. The figure of depreciation appears in computation of income and also form 3CD in clause no 14. The appellant has mentioned as per schedule enclosed. The same is appeared in the Balance sheet. That the appellant at the time of filing the return did try to fill in the schedule but due to hiccups in the system was unable to do so. 4. The speaking order was provided by the A.O.”
At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that the assessee has been seeking adjournment since 30.11.2023 and on earlier dates also there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Looking to the conduct of the assessee the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of the material available on record.
Apropos to the grounds of appeal, learned DR contended that the assessee failed to support its claim before the lower authorities and did not claim depreciation properly. Therefore, the depreciation was disallowed.
In the statement of facts it is stated by the assessee that the schedule of depreciation of plant & machinery and depreciation on other assets was not filed along with the ITR since it was not mandatory. The depreciation was claimed in computation of income.
4.1 Considering the fact that since the claim of depreciation on fixed assets being legal, the same ought to have been admitted by the learned CIT(A).
Therefore, considering the totality of facts I am of the considered view that the issue of claim of depreciation needs to be decided in accordance with law and the assessee is required to support its claim by furnishing the material evidence.
Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the issue of claim of AO, who would verify the correctness of the claim and if it is found that the assessee was entitled for depreciation, the AO would allow the same. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 20th February, 2024.