9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Energy Saving Equipments as well as pollution control equipments is not going to effect the Revenue when the income of the assessee was assessed u/s 115JB and MAT was charged. Even if the claim was disallowed if the higher depreciation claim was disallowed the tax liability under MAT was still higher than the normal computation. It is settled proposition of law the Commissioner can invoked the provision of Section 263 only when the twin conditions being the order of the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue are satisfied. In the case in hand for the sake of argument even if the order of the AO is considered as erroneous but the same is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue so far as the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn has been filed and assessed under section 115JB, which is a self contained code and therefore any addition contrary to the provisions of section 115JB is not permissible. 4. That the principal commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-I has grossly erred in setting aside the assessment order in respect of issues relating to higher depreciation on energy saving equipment 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments. 5. That the principal commissioner of Income Tax-I has filed to appreciate the issues of higher depreciation and 100% depreciation on energy saving equipment and pollution control equipments respectively had been examined by the assessing officer and directing the assessing officer to examine the issue aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner that the Assessing Officer has computed the income of the assessee u/s 115JB and charged MAT instead of charging the income under normal computation, therefore, the order passed by the AO cannot be held erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner did not accept the contentions of the assessee and held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The order was set aside with the direction to the AO reexamine both issues of higher depreciation on Energy Saving Equipments and pollution control equipments. 3. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer while completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has made an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ld. DR has fairly admitted this fact that even after disallowance of the claim of higher depreciation the tax liability under MAT would be higher than the normal computation. Further, this issue of higher/additional depreciation is not recurring in nature and limited to the year under consideration. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that once the condition of prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is not satisfied then the ld. CIT is not justified in revising the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Act hence, we set aside the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
