9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the PCIT to undertake an inquiry as regards which of the assets were purchased and installed by the Assessee out of its own funds during the AY in question and, which were those assets that were handed over to it by the DMRC. That basic exercise of determining to what extent the depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the PCIT. Mr. Asheesh Jain then volunteered that the PCIT had exercised the second option available to him under Section 263 (1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. That option, in the considered view of the Court, can be exercised only after the PCIT undertakes an inquiry himself in the manner indicated hereinbefore. That is missing in the present case. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee was not eligible to claim depreciation as it was not the owner of the assets. The Revenue contended that the land for the project was handed over by the DMRC to the Assessee as Concessionaire without actual transfer of ownership. The design and construction of the basic structure was also done by the DMRC. 5. The case of the Assessee, on the other hand, is that during the AY in question it had purchased and installed plant and machinery and such plant and machinery was legally owned by it. It is further contended that since such assets were used for the purposes of Assessee's business, it was entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. 6. It appears that during the original assessment proceedings, the AO issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of the Act". The case of the Assessee was that such a Circular could not dictate to the AO how he should frame his assessment and, to the extent the Circular was prejudicial to the Assessee, its application would be beyond the scope and ambit of the powers conferred on the Board under Section 119 of the Act. 9. It is seen, in the order dated 30th March 2016, the PCIT has proceeded by setting out the contents of the SCN and the contents of the reply given by the Assessee. It appears that no inquiry, as such, was undertaken by the PCIT to come to the conclusion that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 10. For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
