9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. 2 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and / or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal. 2. Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ₹ 20,85,370/- filed on 30-10-2007 by the assessee, running an orthopedic hospital, after being processed on 13-01-2009 u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ], was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act 23-07-2008.During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer[AO in short] noticed that the assessee debited an amount of ₹ 48,88,767/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt brought by the Finance Act, 2008. The assessee has originally claimed depreciation of ₹ 1,74,86,869/- which was subsequently revised to ₹ 1,76,25,064/-. The appellant further contended that although the income assessed by AO will remain unaffected as the income is assessed at book profit, the above omission would however alter the quantum of MAT credit under sec. 115JAA of the Act, which the assessee can carry forward and thus, the present appeal is filed. It was further submitted that during the year, the appellant had commenced a new hospital unit at SG Road, A bad in the month of March, 2007, huge additions to various classes of assets were made and depreciation was worked out in terms of provisions of the IT Act. It was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of depreciations for the relevant asst. year AY 2007-08 2008-09 are recomputed and accordingly the same were revised in the return for AY 2008-09. However, as the time to revise the return for the asst. year in question had elapsed we could not revise the claim for AY 2007-08. Thus, vide this communication, we request you to kindly consider the revised claim of depreciation as worked out in the enclosed annexure-I, which comes to ₹ 1,76,25,064/- as against the original claim of ₹ 1,74,86,869/-. 2.3 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. As already mentioned above, the issue under appeal has not arisen from the body of the assessment order and the AO has not discussed anything ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... While finalizing the books of A.Y. 2009-10, it was noted by the statutory auditors that there were advances against fixed assets and also some unpaid liabilities on account of certain assets having been put to use in year under question on which depreciation was claimed. That such advances had remained to be debited to the corresponding fixed assets on account of reasons like trade negotiations and other disputes and confirmation from such vendors. Similarly, the liabilities too had remained to be credited to the corresponding fixed assets account for the reasons aforesaid. Thus, after carrying such rectification to the corresponding fixed assets and the reworking of depreciation on that amount resulted into an increase in the depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion otherwise than by revised return, and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. We find that in the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai), the Tribunal after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) held that the AO was obliged to give due relief to the assessee or entertain its claim if admissible as per law even though the assessee had not filed revised return. In their decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court have not barred the assessee, raising its legal claim before appellate authorities, the Apex Court itself clarifying that the issue in that case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and did not impinge on the power of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
