9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 690 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation claimed on house being used as an office - addition applying the provisions of Section 36(l)(iii) - MAT credit - HELD THAT - We find that it is a common contention of the ld AR that written submissions the explanation and the supported documentation submitted by the assessee has either not been considered or properly appreciated by the CIT(A). It is a matter of record that the explanation and documentation so submitted by the assessee is available on record and therefore in the fitness of things we deem it appropriate that the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) to consider the same and decide the matter a fresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Both the parties have agreed to the same. Therefore leaving the various contentions open and not deciding on the merits of the case the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal 2. Addition of depreciation on house used as an office 3. Addition under Section 36(1)(iii) 4. Restriction of MAT credit Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chandigarh, pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee explained the delay in filing the appeal due to pending appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) for multiple years and issues with receiving notices and orders. The Tribunal noted a delay of 1774 days but decided to condone the delay, admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits, subject to a cost of Rs 10,000 to be deposited in the PM National Relief Fund. Addition of Depreciation on House Used as an Office: The Assessee contested the addition of Rs.5,55,946 made by the assessing officer for disallowing depreciation claimed on a house used as an office. The Assessee provided detailed evidence during the appellate proceedings, which the Ld. CIT(A) allegedly did not consider fully. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the Assessee's submissions and evidence. Addition under Section 36(1)(iii): The Assessee challenged the addition of Rs.7,66,255 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii). The Assessee argued that the advances given were for business purposes only, related to real estate development. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground without providing a reasoned explanation. The Tribunal directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Ld. CIT(A) after reviewing the Assessee's submissions and documentation. Restriction of MAT Credit: The Assessee disputed the restriction of MAT credit to Rs.8,83,138 against Rs.17,91,281 available. The Assessee claimed the MAT credit was rightly done, suggesting the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal, finding discrepancies in the consideration of Assessee's explanations, set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside the issues for reconsideration by the Ld. CIT(A) after proper evaluation of the Assessee's submissions and evidence.
|
