2014 (7) TMI 862 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on property Business activity not carried out during year Held that - CIT(A) was perfectly justified in holding that the Assessee is entitled to depreciation as well as deduction towards expenditure - the assessee has made a specific claim that the company had used the premises for its business purpose and had earned business conducting charges under the head income from house property the nature of the said income does not cease to be business activity - income earned may be assessable to tax under the head property income but the fact remains that the assessee was engaged in a business activity assessee contended that claim of deduction towards depreciation as well as expenditure is directly linked to the earning of income under the head business thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against orders passed by CIT(A) for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.
- Allowance of expenditure claimed in Profit & Loss A/c and 50% depreciation on property.
- Decision based on CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2002-03.
- Tribunal's confirmation of CIT(A)'s decision.
- Consideration of business activity for depreciation and expenditure claims.
- AO's absence during appeal hearings.
- Dismissal of all appeals filed by Revenue.

The judgment involves multiple appeals filed by the Revenue against orders passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The grounds of appeal in all cases were identical, challenging the CIT(A)'s direction to allow expenditure claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c and 50% of depreciation on property, despite the absence of any business activity by the Assessee during the year. The Revenue also contested the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessment year 2002-03, which was pending before the ITAT and not accepted by the Revenue.

During the proceedings, the Authorized Representative highlighted that the Tribunal had previously confirmed the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2002-03, which favored the Assessee. The Departmental Representative did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, citing the earlier order in favor of the Assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessee was entitled to depreciation and expenditure deductions, as the Assessee had used the premises for business purposes, earning income under the head 'income from house property', which did not negate the business activity nature. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the Revenue to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.

Furthermore, the Tribunal criticized the absence of the Assessing Officer (AO) during the appeal hearings, emphasizing the importance of AO's presence to present arguments and counter the Assessee's claims. The Tribunal expressed disappointment over the AO's failure to appear and the lack of material provided by the Revenue to support their contentions. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, based on the available record. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18th June 2014.