9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discrepancy between returned and assessed loss. 2. Allowance of initial depreciation. 3. Denial of opportunity to be heard by the Commissioner. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the IT Act due to a significant difference between the loss returned and the loss assessed. The firm, engaged in khandsari mills, was established on 1st November, 1975, but the return for the assessment year 1977-78 covered a period when the firm was not in existence. The returned loss was Rs. 1,30,910, while the assessed loss by the ITO was Rs. 13,281, leading to a discrepancy necessitating reference to section 144B. The CIT set aside the ITO's order for a fresh assessment. 2. The ITO had allowed initial depreciation of Rs. 67,594, which the CIT found incorrect as the machinery was owned by an individual before the partnership was formed. The CIT directed a fresh assessment to disallow the initial depreciation. The appellant contended that the machinery was first used by the firm, and the actual business commenced on 15th January, 1976, within a one-year accounting period. 3. The appellant argued that the discrepancy in losses was procedural and did not prejudice the revenue. Additionally, the denial of initial depreciation was challenged based on the ownership and usage of the machinery. The appellant claimed that important issues raised in a letter to the CIT were not considered, and the opportunity to be heard was denied. The ITAT accepted the appeal, set aside the CIT's order, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after considering the appellant's submissions and any additional evidence. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case and address the issues raised before reaching a decision.
|
