P.K SAJEEV & COMPANY,IDUKKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 684/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 154 rectification proceedings are only meant to correct apparent mistakes and do not permit detailed adjudication or roving enquiries. Therefore, the withdrawal of depreciation was not permissible under Section 154.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initially accepted the assessee's depreciation claim on transport lorries. Subsequently, both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) invoked rectification proceedings under Section 154 to withdraw this higher depreciation claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Officer and CIT(A) were justified in withdrawing depreciation claim through rectification proceedings under Section 154, which requires only correction of apparent mistakes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048487075(1) dated 06.01.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte.

2.

It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have invoked sec. 154 rectification jurisdiction so as to withdraw the assessee’s higher depreciation claim @ 3% on transport lorries, which had already been accepted in the Assessing Officer’s sec. 143(3) assessment on 29.01.2015 for the impugned assessment year P.K. Sajeev & Company 2012-13. Ms. Swarnalatha vehemently argues that the assessee is not entitled for the same under entry no.III(2)(ii), Appendix-1, of the depreciation schedule, in the Income Tax Rules.

3.

We are afraid that such a recourse to detailed adjudication by way of roving enquiries is nowhere permissible in sec.154 rectification proceedings going by TS Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). Their lordships' have settled the law long back that such detailed enquiries are very well beyond the purview of sec. 154 procedure which is meant only to deal with apparent mistakes on record. We accordingly accept the assessee's substantive grounds raised herein. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23 October, 2024.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →