9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 65 days. We have heard Shri S. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. Having heard the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and the Ld.DR, this Tribunal finds that there was sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, the delay of 65 days in filling the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted. 3. Now coming to the merit of the appeal, Shri S.Sridhar, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee claimed depreciation on the written down value. For the assessment year 2013-14 also, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee company. Hence the revisional order cannot stand. 4. On the contrary, Shri S. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation without due application of mind. The Ld.DR very fairly submitted that the properties of the assessee company were sold under SARFEASI Act during the financial year 2013-14. However it is not known whether the Assessing Officer has conducted any enquiry. The failure of the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry is an error within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer is not only erroneous but also prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. 5. We have considered the rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee incurred expenditure for creation of an intangible asset namely the brand name "Pantherkid", this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that such expenditure has to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore the assessee is entitled for depreciation U/s.32(1) of the Act. This is one of the possible views taken by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the PCIT is not justified in revising the order of the Assessing Officer in exercise of his power U/s.263 of the Act. 6. Now coming to the next ground of the appeal with regard to exemption claimed U/s.2(14) of the Act. 7. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that out of 86.50 acres of land, the assessee has treated 20 acres of land as non-agriculture and balance 66.50 acre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al land is not complied with. Hence, he revised the order. 9. Having heard the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and the Ld.DR, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the land in question has rightly been classified as agricultural land. It is not in dispute that out of 86.5 acres of land, 66.5 acres of land was claimed to be an agricultural land. It is also not in dispute that there was electricity service connection from TamilNadu Electricity Board. The Revenue now claims that there was no evidence for consumption of electricity. In the state of TamilNadu, the electricity for agriculture is supplied by the TamilNadu Electricity Board free of cost. Therefore when the electricity service connection was obtained, it may not be necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
