9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The depreciation claimed by the assessee in all these years were disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the said disallowance was also confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, the assessee has filed these appeals before us. 4. During the course of assessment proceeding for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee did not carry on any manufacturing operation. The assessee had carried on a small trading activity only. However, the assessee claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act even though the assets were not put to use for manufacturing activities. Hence, the Assessing Officer reopened ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so disallowed the claim of depreciation made in both years. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter by filing the appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but the first appellate authority confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before us. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The learned authorised representative submitted before us that the assessee had been declaring the rental income in all these years under the head "Income from business" and hence it has claimed depreciation on the assets. It was brought to our notice by both parties that this Bench of Tribunal considered an identical issue in the assessee's own case in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid two years. 10. With regard to the assessment year 2004-05, the learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee has leased out plant and machinery also along with the building and the lease rentals were collected on the basis of weight of the product processed. Accordingly he submitted that the decision rendered by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 is applicable to this year. However, the learned Departmental representative disputed the same by stating that the learned authorised representative is putting forth new arguments, which were not put before the Assessing Officer. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the above said contentions do not find place therein. When a specific query was put to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
