9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first respondent and the consequential order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the very same respondent. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the first respondent to reconsider and allow the depreciation claim of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is an Assessee before the respondents. In respect of the assessment year 2012-2013, the petitioner filed return claiming depreciation on intangible assets and consequently, for refund of tax to the tune of Rs. 2,38,13,420/-. The Assessing Officer, by an order of assessment dated 27.03.2015, disallowed the depreciation claim of the petitioner on intangible assets, by giving certain reasons and findings. Challenging the said order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel that the Assessing Officer has not, in fact, strictly followed the directions issued by the First Appellate Authority, while remanding the matter, more particularly, with regard to the verification of the confirmation from the above said two companies. Therefore, it is contended that the Assessing Officer has to be directed to re-consider the issue once again. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Assessing Officer has strictly followed the directions issued by the First Appellate Authority and has dis-allowed the depreciation claim, since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with such depreciation claim, based on the verification of the confirmation in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification of the confirmations by the Assessing Officer. Perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the remand, would clearly indicate that the Assessing Officer has dealt with the confirmations from the above said two companies in his order at Paragraph No.3 in detail. The Assessing Officer has also taken note of the fact that for the subsequent assessment year 2013-2014, the very same issue raised by the petitioner was rejected by the First Appellate Authority. When such being the factual findings rendered by the Assessing Officer, the correctness or otherwise of the same has to be tested by the petitioner only before the next fact finding authority viz., the First Appellate Authority. Without doing so, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
