9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by the Ld. AR at the time of hearing by stating that the assessee has not shown hire charges in its books of account. Hence, it is apparent mistake committed by AO while framing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2004 and allowed depreciation at 30% as claimed by the assessee instead of deductible depreciation at 15% - the apparent error has arisen from the records of the case and it was not discovered from other sources. Hence, the error discovered as a result of perusal of the records would constitute apparent error which conferred jurisdiction on the concerned Assessing Officer to rectify the earlier order. It follows from this that the evidence which was considered by the Assessing Officer to rectify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer allowed 15% of depreciation as against 30% claimed by the assessee. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the excess claim of depreciation claimed by the assessee is a part of record and the action of the Assessing Officer to disallow the same falls within the purview of section 154 of the I.T. Act. According to the CIT(A), though the assessee relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) ITR 8C (SC), it is seen that the vehicle used by the assessee was to ply his own goods and the Assessing Officer was right in withdrawing the excess claim on the vehicle. Therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2004 and allowed depreciation at 30% as claimed by the assessee instead of deductible depreciation at 15%. In the present case, the apparent error has arisen from the records of the case and it was not discovered from other sources. Hence, the error discovered as a result of perusal of the records would constitute apparent error which conferred jurisdiction on the concerned Assessing Officer to rectify the earlier order. It follows from this that the evidence which was considered by the Assessing Officer to rectify the error is not extraneous to the record but it is intimately connected with the records. Hence, exercising jurisdiction u/s. 154 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
