9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of deciding the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for depreciation on office building and interest on loan availed for the said building on merit in accordance with law after verifying all the relevant aspects - Decided partly in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.963 & 964/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - Shri P. M. Jagtap and Shri V. Durga Rao,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Raviseshagiri Rao For the Respondent : Mr. D. Sudhakar Rao ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. These two appeals are preferred by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 10.01.2014 passed for A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53,32,122. 3. For A.Y. 2009-2010, the return of income was originally filed by the assessee on 30.09.2010 declaring total income of ₹ 28,07,290. Subsequent to the search action in the case of M/s. Midwest Granites P. Ltd., a notice under section 142(1) was issued by the A.O. on 16.04.2010 calling for the return of income for A.Y. 2009-2010. In response to the said notice, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 14.10.2010 declaring a loss of ₹ 15,72,020 after making additional/new claim for deduction on account of depreciation on building and interest paid on loan availed for the purpose of building. According to the A.O. there was no reason given by the assessee for declaring more income in the return filed in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d merit in the contention raised by the assessee and directed the A.O. to adopt the income as declared by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice under section 153C for A.Y. 2008-2009 for the following reasons given in his impugned order. As regard to the A.Y. 2008-09, the fact reveals that original return of income was filed on 31.03.2009 and return in response to notice u/s.153C was filed on 14.10.2010 and the lower incomes shown in return of income filed subsequently was on account of higher claims of interest on Term Loan and the depreciation, which are claimed to be supported by relevant evidences/information. However, the A.O. rejected to consider the return of income filed in response to notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cogent evidence to show that such claims are wrong and the income of the .assessee is more than what has been shown in return of income. For the said reasons, the A.O. is not justified in adopting the income as per original return of income by ignoring the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153C/142(1). Even on the basis of judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant, the deductions claimed in the proceedings u/s.153A/153C cannot be rejected simply on the ground that such deductions were not claimed in original assessment. The judicial decisions were also of the view that deductions not claimed in original returns, can be claimed in return of income filed u/s.153A. It was further held that once the return of income fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de, in computing the total income. In this case, the claims on account of higher interest on Term loan and depreciation are verifiable and there is no information at the disposal of A.O. as traced from the seized material, to show that the appellant has higher incomes than the income admitted in revised return filed in response to the notice u/s.142(1). Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that A.O. is not justified in ignoring the returned income as per Revised Return and adopting the income in original Return of income, without bringing material facts on record and without holding that revised returns is not valid. Hence, the ground of appeal for AY 2009-10 is treated as allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the appellant s case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have dismissed the enhanced claims relating to interest and depreciation and restore the income admitted in the returns of income filed originally. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. The learned D.R. has not raised any contention to dispute the decision rendered by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order that the additional/new claim made by the assessee for deduction on account of interest and depreciation in the return filed in response to notice under section 153C for A.Y. 2008-2009 and in the revised return validly filed in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) for A.Y. 2009-2010 ought to have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
