9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to full depreciation for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and subsequent years in accordance with the law. We are accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same. We also direct the assessee to furnish the working of depreciation to the Assessing Officer who will verify and allow the same in accordance with law. Disallowance of prior period expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence in support of the claim that those expenses were crystallized during the year. Before us also the ld Counsel of the assessee could not produce any evidence in support of the claim that those expenses were crystallized during the year. Therefore, we decline to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts and in law in disallowing depreciation on telecom system of ₹ 1,67,03,338/- contending that the same was not put to use. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Prior Period Expenses of ₹ 1,56,676/-. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making lump sum disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- out of Vehicle and Office Expenses. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same AY 2006-07 1. The assessment order u/s 143(3) is bad in law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in disallowing depreciation on pipelines amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of ₹ 10 crores each to these two institutions, the amount payable was a contractual liability and therefore the amount was provided for and depreciation on the same was claimed. He accordingly contended that since every year is a separate and independent year, and therefore any decision taken in the past cannot ipso facto be applied to the year under consideration without examining the facts of the issue. 5. As against this, the ld Departmental Representative pointed out that since the matter is clearly covered against the assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case in the earlier years, therefore the view taken by the ld CIT(A) be upheld. 6. We find considerable force in the submissions made by the ld Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of put to use of such telecom system was inadvertently mentioned as 30.09.2004 instead of 30.09.2003 in the audit report which falls in Assessment Year 2005-06. This fact has not been considered by the Assessing Officer while making disallowance of depreciation on the telecom system on the basis of earlier years. The Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the fact that every year is a separate and independent assessment year and therefore any decision taken in the past cannot ipso facto be applied to the year under consideration without examining the facts of the issue. To sum up, he concluded that as per Audit Report the telecom system is put to use on 30.09.2004 the Assessing Officer be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses were crystallized during the year. Before us also the ld Counsel of the assessee could not produce any evidence in support of the claim that those expenses were crystallized during the year. Therefore, we decline to interfere. Ground No.4 is dismissed. 12. Ground No.5 of the Assessment Year 2005-06 is against the lump sum disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- out of vehicle and office expenses on the ground that no supporting details are furnished. The ld Counsel of the assessee submitted that this disallowance cannot be made without rejecting the books of account. As against this, the ld Departmental Representative supported the order of ld CIT(A). 13. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not produced voucher of these expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
