9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the assessment for the year 1981-82 is barred by limitation due to the time taken for receiving directions from the IAC. 2. Whether depreciation at 15% along with extra shift allowance is admissible for a weighing machine installed during the year of account. Analysis: 1. The first issue raised in the appeal pertains to the limitation period for completing the assessment for the year 1981-82. The contention was that the assessment was invalid as the time taken from forwarding the draft assessment order to receiving directions from the IAC exceeded 180 days. The appellant argued that as per Explanation 1 to section 153, any delay beyond 180 days rendered the assessment void. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the provision merely extends the normal limitation period by 180 days for the assessing officer to obtain directions from the IAC. It clarified that there is no specific time limit for the IAC to provide directions under section 144B. The Tribunal cited previous decisions to support its interpretation, emphasizing that the 180-day extension is for the assessing officer's benefit and does not constrain the IAC's powers. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order for the year 1981-82. 2. The second issue raised in the appeal concerns the allowance of depreciation for a weighing machine installed during the relevant year. The appellant claimed depreciation at 15% along with extra shift allowance based on the machine's usage with corrosive chemicals. However, the appellant failed to provide evidence to support this claim. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation only at 10% for the weighing machine, rejecting the appellant's argument for a higher rate. The ground related to depreciation was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Overall, the Tribunal addressed the issues raised in the appeal concerning the assessment year 1981-82, ruling in favor of the assessing authority on the limitation period and confirming the depreciation rate determined by the CIT(A) for the weighing machine. The detailed analysis provided clarity on the legal interpretation of relevant provisions and previous precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's contentions on both grounds.
|
