M.Arunachalam and Co, CHENNAI v. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1139/CHNY/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 113921714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAAFM6851F
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1139/CHNY/2016
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s)
Appellant M.Arunachalam and Co, CHENNAI
Respondent ACIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 13-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 13-10-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 27-04-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . !' . #$#% & '' ( [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 1139/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-2012 M/S. M. ARUNACHALAM AND CO NO.117/79 LLOYDS ROAD ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN AAAFM 6851F ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS RANGE VIII CHENNAI. ( )* / APPELLANT) ( + )* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. J. CHANDRASEKARAN C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SUPRIYO PAL IRS JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 13-10-2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-10-2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST A ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-13 CHENNAI ITA NO. 1139/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: ASSAILS AN ADDITION ARISING OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM OF >11 60 000/-. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACTOR IES. AS PER ASSESSEE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT R EACHED AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION THAT IT HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATI ON ON LAND ALSO. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD . ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT HIMSELF A SUM OF >11 60 000/- AS EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON LAND. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE THOUGH ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) TOOK AN ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 80% DEPRE CIATION ON COST OF WINDMILL WHICH INCLUDED LAND VALUE OF >14 50 000 /-. POINTING OUT OF DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO .19. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON OFFICE LAND OF >2 92 82 496/- NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE SUM OF >2 95 95 0 00/- WHICH WAS PRESUMED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO INCLUDE VALUE OF LAND DID NOT HAVING IN IT ANY LAND AT ALL. ACCORDING TO LD. AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE LAND FOR WINDMILL GENERATOR COSTING >14 50 000/- WA S SEPARATELY SHOWN ITA NO. 1139/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: IN THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED THEREON. THUS ACCORDING TO HIM DISALLOWANCE WAS WR ONGLY MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3. PER CONTRA THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRO NGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TOTAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR CAME TO > 2 76 96 997/-. THE BREAKUP OF CLAIM IS PLACED BEFORE US AS PAPER BOOK IN PAGE NO.19. THIS IS THE VERY SAME AMOUNT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME COMPUTATION STATEMENT PLACED AT PAPER BO OK PAGE NO.7. THE BREAKUP OF >2 76 96 997/- GIVEN IN THE PAPER B OOK CLEARLY SHOW THAT LAND FOR WINDMILL GENERATION WAS VALUED AT >14 50 000/- AND NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AGAINST THE ABOVE SU M. HOWEVER IN OUR OPINION A DETAILED VERIFICATION IS NECESSARY T O FIND OUT WHETHER >2 95 95 000/- SHOWN AS WIND ELECTRIC GENERATOR I NCLUDE ANY LAND. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER REQUIR ES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWA NCE OF DEPRECIATION ITA NO. 1139/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR V ERIFICATION AND DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . #$#% ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 28TH OCTOBER 2016 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. + ' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF