9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o go beyond the direction of the competent authority while passing order giving effect. So far as the merit of the case is concerned the Ld. counsel has pointed out that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron Steel Ltd. [ 1997 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] - However, we notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the cases relied upon by the Ld. counsel. As alleged by the Ld. counsel the issue involved is also covered in favour of the assessee which has not been looked into by the authorities below. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the AO for passing order giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal and held that out of ₹ 60.83 crore an amount of 41.83 crore is not taxable and confirmed the addition of remaining amount. Accordingly, the AO passed order giving effect to the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), however, held that the amount of ₹ 41.83 crore is to be allocated to machinery which could go to reduce the cost of the assets. Out of the said amount the allocation of machinery under the head of depreciation @ 15% and 80% are to be allocated on pro data basis depending upon the WDV of the said block. The sum allocated to the block of asset on which depreciation is claimed @ 15% comes to ₹ 39,64,84,410/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That Worthy CIT(A)-3, further erred in law on facts by upholding the wrong computation of disallowance of depreciation which was computed by Adjusting incorrect figures of WDV of plant machinery, after allocation of sum of ₹ 41.83 Crore. Directions be given to consider the figure of Block of Assets as mentioned in Statement of Facts at Para No. II. Of appeal filed before CIT(A), Ludhiana. IV. That the appellant craves, leave to add, amend, alter, modify or substitute all or any of the above-mentioned Ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the AO not to allocate the amount of differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g effect to the appellate order, the AO has to strictly follow the direction of the order passed by the concerned authority, therefore the AO has no jurisdiction to travel beyond direction given by the Appellate Authority. The Ld. counsel relied on the following cases to substantiate his contention:- 1. Haryana State Cooperative Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA No. 791/Chd/2013 (ITAT, Chandigarh) 2. State Bank of Hyderabad vs DCIT, ITA No. 449/Hyd/2015 (ITAT, Hyd). 3. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA No. 4179/Mum/2003 (ITAT, Mumbai) 4. Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, CA No. 1997/2019 (Gujarat High Court) 5. ITO Vs Ryam Sugar Company Ltd. - 105 ITR 819 (Cal. High Court) 5. The Ld. co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain of 60.87 crores an amount of ₹ 19.03 crores is held to be taxable and rest of the amount i.e. 41.83 crores is not taxable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is therefore confirmed to the tune of ₹ 19.03 crores. 8. As contended by the Ld. counsel, the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any direction to reduce the amount of ₹ 41.83 crores from the costs of assets. The Ld. CIT(A) in his order passed in second round of appeal has not given any cogent and convincing reason for upholding the action of the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO holding that the assessee while agitating the appeal effect order has not filed any detailed submissions or any documentary evidence to demonstrate that the action of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO. Looking to the facts of the case, no interference in called for in the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation to the extent of ₹ 7,69,90,741/. Accordingly, grounds of appeal no. 1, 2 and 3 stands dismissed. 9. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the AO has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the directions given by the concerned authority while giving effect to the orders passed by the higher authorities. In the case of State Bank of Hyderabad Vs DCIT and in the case of Aventis Pharma Vs DCIT (supra) the Hyderabad and the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal respectively have held that the AO cannot travel beyond the direction issued by the higher authority. Similarly, in ITO Vs. Ryam Sugar Company Ltd. and Engi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
