9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would show that the entire issue is factual. The Tribunal having considered the relevant materials on record has come to conclusion which has not shown to be perverse. No question of law arises - Decided against revenue - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.124 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2019 - AKIL KURESHI AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. Mr. Sham Walve for the Appellant. Mr. Girish Dave i/by Mr.Tanzil Padvekar for the Respondent. P.C.: 1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following questions for our consideration: I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that there did not exist any building on the sold pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are unable to agree with the view expressed by Ld. CIT (A) on this issue. It is the Ld. CIT (A), who has given a definite finding that the Kalina property did not have any factory structure. The total value of Kalina Property (cost of land + amount spent thereon) ₹ 29.15 lakhs remained the same since 1995 onwards. There is no controversy on this fact. The assessee has given explanation that the amount of about ₹ 26.00 lakhs was spent on land levelling, construction of compound wall and a watchman shed. This explanation of the assessee has not been proved to be false. The fact that the assessee has carried on its manufacturing activities in Kalachowki building was also accepted. Hence, the Ld CIT (A) has held that the assessee di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are of the view that the tax authorities are not justified in taking adverse view of the matter. When the Ld. CIT (A) has come to a define conclusion that the Kalina property was not used for factory purposes, we are of the view that there is no reasons to hold that the assessee could have claimed depreciation on the Kalina property, simply for the reason that the assessee did not produce assessment records. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in holding that the assessee could have claimed depreciation on the Kalina property, as the said view is based on surmises and conjectures. 4. Perusal of the documents on record and in particular the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
