9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 154 of the Act however, the CIT (Appeals) has considered the claim of the assessee which was raised in the rectification petition filed under Section 154. Without going into the issue of the scope of section 154 of the Act, we are of the view that when the CIT (Appeals) has the jurisdiction to entertain the said claim raised by the assessee in the petition under Section 154 in the appellate proceedings against the assessment order then the issue can be looked into only from the angle of the allowability of the claim on merits. We find that both these claims were covered by the various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and therefore there was no error or illegality in the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed u/s.154 of the IT Act? 2. Without prejudice to the above, whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in granting relief to the assessee by allowing the depreciation amount of ₹ 1,29,81,735/- without appreciating that the issue involved is debatable in nature and therefore cannot be considered in the proceedings u/s.154 of the IT Act? 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assesse is eligible to carry forward the earlier year expenditure of Rs.l,70,31,693/- and adjust it towards current year income without appreciating that there is no such provision under the act in respect of trusts? 4. Whether on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low deduction for depreciation claimed on fixed asset to the extent of ₹ 1,29,81,735. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Act vide order dt.3.3.2010. Thus the order passed under Section 154 of the Act dt.3.3.2010 merged with the assessment order which was the subject matter of the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) while passing the impugned order has allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of the earlier year expenditure adjusted towards the current year income as well as deduction of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. However the CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim of deduction for acquisition of fixed assets on the ground that the claim cannot be all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wise the appellate authority has the jurisdiction and power to entertain such claim in the appeal proceedings. He supported the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals). 6. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that the impugned order has been passed by the CIT (Appeals) in the appeal filed on 27.1.2010 against the assessment order dt.23.12.2009. Therefore proceedings before the CIT (Appeals) were against the assessment order and not against the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Act however, the CIT (Appeals) has considered the claim of the assessee which was raised in the rectification petition filed under Section 154. Without going into the issue of the scope of section 154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also covered in the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in 146 ITR 28 cited above. 4.4 I find that both issues are covered issues and accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same, respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 4.5 Regarding the amounts spent on acquisition of capital assets, it is argued by the appellant that the appellant has spent an amount of ₹ 2,63,43,356 towards acquisition of capital assets. However, while filling the return, it has claimed only ₹ 1,61,92,963 but, before completion of assessment it has filed revised statement of total income wherein, the amount considered was ₹ 2,63,43,356 which is supported by audite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
