9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is discerned that the assessee has not claimed any depreciation on the leathe machinery and for the two tipper lorries. As noted that the assessee in his balance sheet placed at page 14 of the paper book has reflected the depreciation on these two items, however the assessee has not claimed the depreciation while computing tax in his return since he had adopted contract income u/s. 44AD and tipper income u/s. 44AE of the Act. However, the AO erroneously without application of mind has assumed that assessee has claimed depreciation which fact has not been examined properly by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order. Ergo, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the depreciation added by the AO/Ld. CIT(A) is directed to be del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m which assessee had shown income from the date of purchase till 31.03.2012 (seven months) ₹ 5000 x 7 x 2 i.e. ₹ 70,000/- by applying presumptive tax u/s. 44AE of the Act. However, according to Ld. AR, the AO has increased the gross receipt by conjectures and surmises and made addition of ₹ 31,296/- on account of contract income and addition of ₹ 97,638/- on account of tipper income which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the depreciation added by the AO to the tune of ₹ 16,320/- and ₹ 9,06,000/- from contract income and tipper lorry income respectively by holding as under: On consideration of the matter I find the action of the AO to be valid. It may be noted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er lorry) which figures have been picked up from Balance Sheet placed at page 14 of the paper book and pleaded for deletion of the same. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR though supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) could not controvert the contention of the Ld. AR to the effect that without the assessee claiming depreciation the AO for the leathe machinery and the two tipper lorries, had erroneously added the same when the assessee has offered tax by adopting presumptive income as per sections 44AD and 44AE of the Act. 8. Having heard both the parties. The facts are not repeated for the sake of brevity. It is noted that the assessee from his contract income has shown gross receipt of ₹ 37,08,298/- for which he has offered tax by applyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
