9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order and Ld. AO should not have allowed the assessee s claim without examining the issues. This factual aspect remains unverified. Assessee merely kept referring to the decision that an enquiry was made by the ld. AO and section 263 should not have been invoked. We, however, find no merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assesse with regard to the issue of claim of depreciation on electrical installation because though the inquiry was initiated, but the same was incomplete as the assessee did not reply to it in the way it ought to be. Therefore, in real terms, there was no enquiry on the said issue. We, therefore, confirm the findings of the ld. PCIT on the said issue of excess claim of depreciation on electrical in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter referred to as the 'Act') is bad in law, unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act without satisfying the preconditions necessary for assumption of such jurisdiction i.e. an error in assessment order must be an error of law or fact. 3. That on the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in initiating revisionary proceedings on the same issues on which rectification proceedings was already initiated by the Assessing Officer and that such exercise of concurrent jurisdiction amounts to erroneous / incorrect assumption of jurisdiction u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification which should have been made in the instant case, thus clause (a) of Explanation-2 to section 263(1) of the Act is attracted. 4. A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that, the sole grievance of the assessee is challenging the validity of jurisdiction invoked by the ld.PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act and the impugned order being bad in law, unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 5. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in providing consultancy, accounting and advisory service. E-return of income for the AY 2014-15 filed on 28-11-2014 declaring total income at Rs.59,51,72,921/-. The return was revised on 31-03-2016 declaring income at Rs.69,53,53,702/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -03-2021 acted and passed an assessment order on 30- 03-2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Out of the above stated three issues the ld. AO made the addition/disallowance only on account of following two issues:- Sl.No. Issue Amount 1 Disallowance on an issue not pertaining to the appellant 18,801,826/- 3 Excess claim of depreciation on electrical installation 6,50,000/- 8. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to a rectification order passed by the ld. PCIT on 12-04-2022 and the following words appearing in para 5 of the impugned order ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hora of judgment referred and relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in two case laws paper books filed before us. The assessee has challenged the revisionary proceedings carried out by the Ld. PCIT directing the ld. AO to examine the claim of depreciation on electrical installation in the direction given in the impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. We find that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% whereas Appendix-1 of I.T Rules r.w. s 32 of the I.T Act, 1961 provides for depreciation @ 10% in respect of electrical installation. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the depreciation charged @ 15% on electrical installation is in accordance with the Tax Audit Report duly certified by the Tax Audito ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant machinery. The assessee itself accepted that electrical installation are chargeable to depreciation @ 10%, but claimed the same at higher rate of depreciation. Onus is on the assessee to explain and prove the same with detail about such claim. Since no such specific reply was given by the assessee, the enquiry made by the ld. AO remained incomplete and it ought to have been addressed in the assessment order and Ld. AO should not have allowed the assessee s claim without examining the issues. This factual aspect remains unverified. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee merely kept referring to the decision that an enquiry was made by the ld. AO and section 263 should not have been invoked. We, however, find no merit in the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
