9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not being able to file the appeal within the time. Further, after hearing the assessee on merits also, we find that the assessee has an arguable case on merits. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay of 368 (Three Six Eight) days and proceed to dispose-of the appeal on merits. Value of assets for the purpose of calculation of depreciation - total value of the assets, namely 'Plant and Machinery' sold during the year was only and the Appellant itself deleted this value from block of assets, for the purpose of calculation of depreciation - HELD THAT:- We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Parle Soft Drinks (Bangalore (P) Ltd) [ 2017 (11) TMI 1311 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doned. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has explained that delay has occurred due to misplacement of papers by one of the office staff and hence the same was beyond the reasonable control of the assessee and there was no willful omission or negligence on the part of the assessee-company. 2.1. Ld.DR, however, opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained as to who is the office staff who has misplaced the papers and what is the action taken by the assessee against such person and how and when the papers were traced by the assessee. 2.2. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey are packing strips and paint tins only and they are not relevant to any particular asset that the assessee-company is supposed to have deleted. He therefore treated that the same as not a genuine transaction but since the assessing company has admitted that the assets have been sold during the Financial Year 2003-04, he reduced the opening WDV (Written Down Value) of ₹ 10,43,660/- from the block of assets and brought the difference of the sum of ₹ 10,16,878/- (10,43,660 26,782) to tax. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us, raising the following Grounds: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal . 5. Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that Section 43(6)(c) of the Act defines that - the WDV of an asset shall be increased by actual cost of any asset falling within that block acquired during the previous year and reduced by the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during the previous year together with the amount of the scrap value, if any, so, however, that the amount of such reduction does not exceed the written down value as so increased. Thus, he submitted that what is to be reduced from the WDV of block of assets is only the value received by the assessee on sale of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of profit on sale of fixed assets for ₹ 45,34,000/- 36. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that this issue has been decided by the tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.1936/K/20l0 for AY 2006-07 dated 29.07.2001 against the revenue and in favour of assessee. The Tribunal vide para 23 of its order has held as under: 23. We have heard the parties and perused the material placed on record. Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) specifically requires the reduction of the written down value of the block of assets by the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold during the previous year. We find that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
