The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Guntur v. M/s Triplaar School of Learning, Guntur

ITA 225/VIZ/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 22525314 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAEFT3828K
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 225/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Guntur
Respondent M/s Triplaar School of Learning, Guntur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 31-03-2010
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 224 TO 226/VIZAG/2010 TRIPLAAR SCHOOL OF LEARNING GUNTUR PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.224 TO 226/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2003-04 DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) GUNTUR VS. TRIPLAAR SCHOOL OF LEARNING GUNTUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO:AAEFT 3828K APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C. SUBRAMANYAM CA ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE R EVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) GUNTUR AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 -02 TO 2003-04. SINCE THE ISSUES URGED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2. THESE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION BY ONE DA Y. THE DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED A PETITION REQUESTING TO CONDONE THE DELA Y FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE SENT BY SPEED POST ONLY AT THE FAG END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD DUE TO PRESSURE OF WORK. HAVING REGARD TO TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS. ITA NO. 224 TO 226/VIZAG/2010 TRIPLAAR SCHOOL OF LEARNING GUNTUR PAGE 2 OF 4 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE THR EE YEARS READ AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AN D FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED DEPRECIATION STATEMENT AND D ETAILS OF ADDITIONS/ DELETIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR EITHER AL ONG WITH THE RETURN OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. 3. THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT (A) THAT THE VALUE OF ASSETS CAN BE DETERMINED AS PER THE ENDORSEMENT IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS AVAILABLE ALONG WITH THE RETURNS IS ALSO NOT CORRECT FOR THE REASON THAT MERE INCREASE IN VALUE OF ASSETS DO ES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT SUCH ASSET WAS READY DURING THE YEAR AND PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. NO DETAILS OF USE OF ASSETS FOR LESS THAN 180 DA YS AND MORE THAN 180 DAYS HAVE BEEN ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EIT HER ALONG WITH THE RETURN OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE CIT (A) OUGHT NOT HAVE GIVEN CREDENCE TO THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECT ED AND SUCH REJECTION WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT (A) WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIALLY PASSED ORDERS TO GIVE EFFECT TO T HE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN THESE THREE YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLO WED IN EXCESS IN THESE THREE YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY PASSED ORDERS U/S 154 O F THE ACT BY ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ACCORDING TO THE COMPUTATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T (A) AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 154. SINCE THE REASONS FOR PASSIN G THE ORDER U/S 154 WERE NOT DISCERNIBLE THE LEARNED CIT (A) CALLED FO R A REPORT FROM THE ITA NO. 224 TO 226/VIZAG/2010 TRIPLAAR SCHOOL OF LEARNING GUNTUR PAGE 3 OF 4 ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE DEPRECIATION WORKINGS ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID DEPRECIATION CLAIM. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULES ARE FORMING PART OF AUDIT RE PORT FILED ALONG THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE D EPRECIATION SCHEDULES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMP LIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 154. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) ISSUED FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.1 I THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CON SIDER THE DEPRECIATION STATEMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN R ESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND TO ALLOW T HE ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE SAID DIRECTION THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DEPRECIATION WORKINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER FROM A CAREFUL READING OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDU LE WAS ATTACHED TO THE AUDIT REPORT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONCE AGAIN F ILED THE DEPRECIATION WORKINGS DURING THE COURSE OF RECTIFICATION PROCEED INGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. BESIDES THE ABOVE WE NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED CIT ( A) HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE DEPRECIATION STAT EMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 154 AND THER EAFTER ALLOW THE ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION IN ALL THESE YEARS. THUS IT CAN BE SEE N THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEP RECIATION WITHOUT MAKING ITA NO. 224 TO 226/VIZAG/2010 TRIPLAAR SCHOOL OF LEARNING GUNTUR PAGE 4 OF 4 ANY VERIFICATION. BEFORE US THE REVENUE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEPRECIATION WORKINGS WERE NOT FIL ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY NECESSITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/07/2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 22 ND JULY 2010 COPY TO 1 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1) 4 TH FLOOR RAJKAMAL COMPLEX LAXMIPURAM MAIN ROAD GUNTUR 522007 2 M/S TRIPLAAR SCHOOL OF LEARNING NH-5 EDULAPALEM GUNTUR 3 4. THE CIT GUNTUR THE CIT(A) GUNTUR 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM