9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts purpose, it cannot therefore, be said that such an asset cannot be added to the block of assets when once the installation/construction of such asset is complete. We are of the considered opinion that if the construction of boundary wall is complete during the current year, the same is eligible to be added to the block of assets and subject to the requirement of law, it is qualified for claiming depreciation. We, therefore, hold that the disallowance of depreciation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct the deletion of the same Cost of acquisition of the property in respect of which long term capital gains were claimed - CIT-A held that the assessee is not entitled to claim the indexed cost of acquisition in respect of which the assessee had no right, title or interest. Learned CIT(A) accordingly, upheld the findings of the learned Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- According to the assessee, on survey, in respect of 4 acres of land which they intended to sell, it was found that there exists only Ac. 3.33 guntas and under a compromise, the assessee got only Ac. 1.332 which the assessee sold. While computing the capital gains on the sale of this Ac. 1.332, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the assessee claimed depreciation at Rs. 1.96 crores. Assessee submitted that they have completed the construction of compound wall during that year and, therefore, added the same to the block of assets and claimed depreciation. Learned Assessing Officer recorded that the boundary wall was not put to use for business purpose and on that score, denied the depreciation. 4. Learned CIT(A) dealt with this aspect, noted the submissions made by the assessee before the learned Assessing Officer, and the opinion of the learned Assessing Officer in detail, also referred to the opinion of the learned Assessing Officer and finally considered the submissions made by the assessee before him. Having done so, learned CIT(A) recorded his findings, which according to us, are necessary to be extracted here under,- 5.4 I have perused the assessment order and the submission of the appellant as above carefully. I find that the AO in the assessment order made a detailed discussion as to why and how the depreciation claimed by the appellant on. the expenditure incurred on the development of the boundary wall should not be allowed u/s. 32 of the Act. The every aspect of AO's observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Assessing Officer and also himself and also the reasoning and the conclusions of the learned Assessing Officer on this aspect. Paragraph No. 5.4 of the impugned order is the culmination of the consideration of the learned CIT(A) of all the above. Learned CIT(A) specifically recorded that he was in agreement with the threadbare reasoning given by the learned Assessing Officer. Then it is not necessary for the learned CIT(A) to refer to line by line in the order of the learned Assessing Officer or the submissions of the assessee to say that he does not agree with the assessee and he is convinced by the reasoning of the learned Assessing Officer. Learned CIT(A) further recorded that he did not find any additional fact or explanation that missed the attention of the learned Assessing Officer. In such situation, it cannot be said that the impugned order on this aspect is not a speaking order. Ground No. 2 of the appeal does not hold any merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 6. insofar as the Ground No. 3 is concerned, Learned AR submitted that for claiming depreciation, it is enough if the asset is ready for its use and insofar as the boundary wall is concerned, actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the current year, the same is eligible to be added to the block of assets and subject to the requirement of law, it is qualified for claiming depreciation. We, therefore, hold that the disallowance of depreciation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct the deletion of the same. 11. Coming to the second addition on account of the cost of acquisition, learned Assessing Officer found that during the year, the assessee sold only 40% of the land while claiming the cost of acquisition in respect of the balance land also. Assessment order reads that the assessee submitted before the learned Assessing Officer that in all the assessee acquired Ac. 184.39 at the cost of Rs. 18.40 crores, but when the assessee intended to sell about 4 acres, thereof, there arose a dispute and the actual extent of land was found to be Ac. 3.33 guntas and under a compromise agreement, 40% thereof fell to the share of the assessee, which the assessee sold. Learned Assessing Officer allowed the cost of acquisition only to such an extent of 40% of land that was sold and disallowed the rest of the same. 12. Learned CIT(A) considered this issue in detail and held that the assessee is not entitled to cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
