What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that essential documents were missing, preventing it from verifying the depreciation claim. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation on containers claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had questioned the claim, stating it was allowed without proper opportunity. The Tribunal noted that crucial documents like the lease agreement and the assessee's return were not available.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer, given the absence of supporting documents.

DCIT vs Marine Container Services (South)… | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

Hearing: 21.06.2018Pronounced: 03.07.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Chennai, dated 20.07.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice by RPAD. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as a proof of service of notice on the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

Shri N. Gopikrishna, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed depreciation of ₹3,62,11,105/- on the containers. Referring to the assessment order, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee entered into purchase lease / finance lease agreement. The Assessing Officer has also found that the lessee company M/s Tristar Container Services (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. has claimed depreciation in the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. However, according to the Ld. D.R., on the basis of affidavit said to be filed before the CIT(Appeals), the claim of depreciation to the extent of ₹3,62,11,105/- was allowed without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not correct in allowing the claim of the assessee.

We heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer categorically says that M/s Tristar Container Services (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. has made a claim of depreciation in the return of income for the assessment year 2014-

15.

Copy of the return said to be filed by M/s Tristar Container Services (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. is not available before this Tribunal.

Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to ascertain whether M/s Tristar Container Services (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. has claimed depreciation on the container. Moreover, copy of lease agreement is also not available, therefore, it is not known whether it is a finance agreement between the parties or the assessee purchased the container and leased out the same. In the absence of such details, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the agreement between the parties for leasing the container and also the return said to be filed by M/s Tristar Container Services (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2018 at Chennai.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MARINE CONTAINER SERVICES (SOUTH) PVT. LIMITED, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments