S.M. Arshad, Mangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1386/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9479 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 138 6 / BANG/20 1 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 9 - 1 0 ) SHRI S.M.ARSHAD, FLAT NO.604, DOOR NO.14 - 2 - 175 - 40, LIGHT HOUSE CONDOMINIUM, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, MANGALORE - 575001. PA NO.ACZPA0799F VS. APPELLANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.KRISHNAN, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 25/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 /08/2016 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - VI, BANGALORE, DATED 16/08 /2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09. 2 THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE ITA NO . 138 6 /BANG/201 2 PAGE 2 OF 3 GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT THERE WAS ONLY LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IN PIZZA CORNER AND IN FACT, ASSET S WERE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF OF MOHTISHAM ENTERPRISES. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). 3. BEFORE US, LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. W E HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO QUARREL ABOUT PROPOSITION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE EVEN IN CASE WHERE THERE IS LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS ONLY LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE ASSETS WERE USED IN SOME OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO . 138 6 /BANG/201 2 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH AUGUST , 2016 S D/ - S D/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE D A T E D : 19 /0 8 /2016 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE