DCIT, Chandigarh V. Shri Ram Swarup Memorial Trust, Ambala Cantt.

ITA 191/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9792 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 191/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE DCIT, VS SHRI RAM SWARUP CIRCLE 2 (EXEMPTION), MEMORIAL TRUST, CHANDIGARH. 20, INDUSTRIAL AREA, AMBALA CANTT. PAN: AACTS3665D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 31.12.2014 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10 CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) I N ALLOWING DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE OR IGINAL RETURN, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE DEPRECIATION AS APPL ICATION OF INCOME BUT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, DEPRECIATION WA S CLAIMED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI 45 DTR 381 (P&H). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISCUSS THIS ISSUE IN THE 2 ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DETAILS OF THE DEPRECIATION WERE, HOWEVER, AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, ADDITIONA L GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON WHICH REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO CALLED FOR IN WHICH ASSE SSING OFFICER STATED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, NO CLAIM OF DEP RECIATION HAS BEEN MADE AND EVEN NO REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN FILED . 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, ADMITTED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECISION AND ALSO NOTED THAT DEPRECIATION IS A STATUTORY CLA IM WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO A ND HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 VIDE ORDER D ATED 02.12.2010 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO ALLOW CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR, HOWEVER, NONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARI NG. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MER IT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ADMITTING ADDITION AL GROUND OF APPEAL CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION. THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS), THEREFORE, CORRECTLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRE CIATION. NO DIFFERENT REASON HAS BEEN ASSIGNED AND THAT LD. CIT (APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI ( SUPRA) FOR THE 3 PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, DI SMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH APRIL,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH