9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 61,71,821/- by accepting the assessee's plea that the provision of Rs. 61,71,821/- has been added back to the income in the computation of income for preceding years. 3. Briefly stated, the facts, as culled out from record, are that the assessee is an AOP engaged in the banking business. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 22.2.2013 determining the income at Rs. 6,59,52,579/-. Thereafter, the learned Pr.CIT vide order u/s 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for examining the issue of deduction of Rs. 61,71,821/- claimed on "depreciation diminution written back". The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions of both the sides. The sole grievance of the revenue relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 61,71,821/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The alleged amount relates to "depreciation diminution written back claim" which was denied by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that the alleged depreciation claim is not optional but mandatory and, therefore, not permissible because the amount is nowhere co-related with depreciation as envisaged u/s 32 of the Act and it is only an accounting measure to mark the investment to market price and, therefore, not deductible. 7. We further observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the impugned addition by observing as under :- "5. I have carefu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added to the income of the appellant as per the computation of income filed with the return for the A.Y., 2007-08. Similarly provision of Rs. 12,20,981/- was made in the A.Y. 2008-09, provision of Rs. 46,35,092/- was made in the A.Y. 2009-10 and provision of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made in the A.Y., 2010-11. However, all these provisions were added back in the computation of income by the appellant himself at the time of filing of return. The copies of ITR and the computation of income for all these assessment years were filed along with the submissions. 7. From the profit and loss account for the year ended 31st March, 2010 under the expenditure claimed by the appellant is the head of 'provisions and contingencies of Rs. 3,21,32,330/-. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the head 'depreciation diminution of investment written back' of Rs. 62,71,821/- from the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11. In all these years, it has added back this provision at the time of filing of return as can be seen from the computation of income for these years. During this assessment year also i.e. A.Y. 2010-11, the appellant has a made a provision of Rs. 1,000,000/- which has been suo moto added back by the appellant in its computation of income. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the contention of the appellant is accepted and the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 62,71,821/- during this assessment year 2010-11 is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
