9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri N. S. Saini And Shri Kul Bharat,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. O. P. Vaishnav, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Sh. Dilip V. Lakhani, AR ORDER Per Shri N. S. Saini, Accountant Member: These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, both dated 06.12.2010 for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2007-08. 2. In both the appeals of the Revenue, the common ground of appeal involved is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition amounting to Rs 20,59,42,943/- in Assessment Year 2004-05 and Rs 30,65,94,229/- in Assessment Year 2007-08. 3. The brief facts of the case in Assessment Year 2004-05 are that the Assessing Officer pursuant to the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment Year 2004-05 wherein the Tribunal held as under: "Coming to the issue in ITA No. 1453/Ahd/2008 for assessment year 2004-05 is as regard to the order of CIT dealt with the issue of allowances of expenses on road overlay and renewal expenses. For this, the assessee has raised ground no. 11- "11) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has directed that the expenditure on road overlay and renewal expenses should be thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer. The appellant submits that no such expenditure is incurred or claimed by the appellant in AY 2004-05. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law and against the provision of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion u/s 263 of the Act or not. We feel that the revision order in such circumstances is unwarranted. Accordingly, assessee succeeds on this issue. 18. In the result, assessee's appeals are allowed." 8. The Ld. DR could not point out any specific error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has vacated the disallowance by following the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assets are the very same assets on which depreciation was disallowed in the Assessment Year 2004-05 which fact has not been disputed by the Ld. DR. Further, the Ld. DR has not brought any material on record to show that the order of the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2004-05 passed in ITA No. 1453/Ahd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
