Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2, Pune, Pune V. M/s. Siddharth Properties, Pune, Pune

ITA 531/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had reversed the Assessing Officer's decision on the assessee's depreciation claims for the assessment year 2011-2012. The primary contention was regarding the assessee's claim of depreciation amounting to Rs.2,49,18,430 and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) amounting to Rs.62,29,607. The CIT(A) had found in favor of the assessee, which the Revenue challenged, arguing that the Assessing Officer was correct in initiating rectification proceedings under Section 154. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros., upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that rectification was not the appropriate mechanism for the issues raised, which involved a review of substantive facts and circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137362 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2022
• Other Referred Cases: TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), ACIT vs. Shree Atul Sivadas Ganatra HUF in ITA.No.7250/Mum./2016 dated 30.11.2000
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.531/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2011-2012 The DCIT, Circle-2, Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra vs. M/s. Siddharth Properties, 501, Eden Hall, Model Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani For Assessee : Shri Suhas Bora Date of Hearing : 23.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This Revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2011- 2012, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 30.05.2022, in Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043249622(1), involving proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2 ITA.No.531/PUN./2022 M/s. Siddharth Properties, Pune. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in the instant appeal that the Assessing Officer had rightly initiated sec.154 rectification mechanism in issue qua the assessee’s depreciation claim of Rs.2,49,18,430/- followed by additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) amounting to Rs.62,29,607/-, respectively, we note that the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reversing the same to this effect reads as follows : 3 ITA.No.531/PUN./2022 M/s. Siddharth Properties, Pune. 4 ITA.No.531/PUN./2022 M/s. Siddharth Properties, Pune. 5 ITA.No.531/PUN./2022 M/s. Siddharth Properties, Pune. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stands. There would be hardly any dispute that hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) has settled the law on rectification long back that the same would not be maintainable in case of the relevant facts requiring long drawn process of inquiries or review of the entire facts, as the case may be. We keep in mind this settled legal proposition and revert back to the facts of the instant case wherein the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance appears to be based on the assessee’s having not declared income from power generation from its wind mills. We find that the Assessing Officer had nowhere disputed/disallowed the very issue at the 6 ITA.No.531/PUN./2022 M/s. Siddharth Properties, Pune. time of framing his sec.143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment on 09.03.2015 and, therefore, his action seeking rectification for assessee’s both depreciation as well as additional depreciation does not deserve to be accepted. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee had duly proved to have installed its wind mill in issue in the relevant previous year only. The same reasoning also prevails qua additional depreciation issue as well as learned coordinate bench of the tribunal in ACIT vs. Shree Atul Sivadas Ganatra HUF in ITA.No.7250/Mum./2016 dated 30.11.2000 has rejected the Revenue’s identical stand in assessment year 2011-12 itself thereby accepting the applicability of sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act. We thus affirm the CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed discussion granting the impugned depreciation as well as additional depreciation relief to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s appeal dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 05 th January, 2023 VBP/- 7 ITA.No.531/PUN./2022 M/s. Siddharth Properties, Pune. Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches Pune.