D.C.I.T CC - XX,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S G.S.ATWAL & CO (ENGINEERS) PVT LTD, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1165/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 June 2016AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the claim of depreciation was allowed under section 154, the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous. The Departmental Representative could not point out any infirmity.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation which was disallowed during processing under section 143(1). The assessee filed a rectification petition under section 154, and the CIT(A) allowed the depreciation claim. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is infructuous when the assessee's claim was allowed via a rectification petition, rendering the appellate proceedings moot.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-III, Kolkata in appeal No.69/CC-XX/CIT(A)C-III/2012-13/Kol dated 28.01.2013. Assessment was framed by ACIT(CPC) u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 13.06.2012 for assessment year 2011-12. Revenue has raised ground per its appeal is reproduced below:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) had erred both in facts as well as in law in allowing relief to the assessee in DCIT CC-XX Kol. vs. M/s G.S.Atwal & Co. Engg.) Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 respect of e-filed return, which has been processed u/s 143(1) at CPC, Bangalore, whereas, petition u/s. 154 filed by the assessee at CPC, Bangalore against the said processing is still pending and ignoring the fact that there was a difference of total income between the downloaded return and the copy of return submitted by the assessee.”

Shri Soumitra Chodhury, L’d Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri R.K.Kureel, L’d Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

2.

At the outset it was observed that assessee claimed depreciation for an amount of ₹15,24,46,177/- which was disallowed under the intimation processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Against such intimation, besides rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before L’d CIT(A). After hearing the contentions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee for the depreciation in his impugned appellate order.

Being aggrieved by this order of L’d CIT(A) Revenue preferred an appeal before on the ground that L’d CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in intimation under section 143(1) of the Act despite of the Act that the rectification petition filed by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act before CPC, Benglore is still pending.

3.

L’d AR before us submitted that the claim of depreciation of the assessee has been allowed u/s 154 of the Act. Consequently the appeal filed by Revenue has become infructuous. On the other hand, Ld. DR could not point out any infirmity in the assessee’s claim on the aforesaid submission.

DCIT CC-XX Kol. vs. M/s G.S.Atwal & Co. Engg.) Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the Revenue’s appeal as infructuous.

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →