Pearl Nets, Amritsar. V. The Income tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 635/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76959 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P BHATIA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Retraction; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 635(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AAHFP6559L PEARL NETS, JOSHIPURA, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, ISLAMABAD, AMRITSAR WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.P. BHATIA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 19.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.05.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), AM RITSAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) HAS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, G ROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN REJECTING CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MANDATOR Y DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. II. THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO DETAIL OF FIXED A SSETS AND ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR WERE PLACED ON RECORD DURING T HE COURSE OF 2 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HA VE FAILED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION THEREON. III. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND LA W AND THE MANDATORY ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN WRONGL Y REFUSED. IV. THAT THE EVIDENCE REGARDING ADDITION OF MACHINERY A ND ITS USE FOR BUSINESS IN THE FORM OF PRODUCTION OF GOODS WAS DUL Y FILED DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND THE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIAT ION, FROM YEAR TO YEAR, WAS MANDATORY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPL ANATION (5) TO SECTION 32(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE LOWER A UTHORITIES HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN ALLOWING THE SAME. V. THAT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, S UBMISSIONS MADE AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW HAVE NOT BEEN PROPER LY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN WRONGLY REFUSED WHICH IS OTHERWISE MANDATORY UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY IN PARA NO. 3 (PAGE NO. 2) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ARE NOT DISPU TED BY THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, TH E SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IT IS A CASE OF A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, WHERE THE APPELLANT FIRM DERIVES BUSINESS INCOME FR OM SALE OF KNITTED CLOTH AS WELL AS FROM FABRICATION JOB WO RK CHARGES FOR OTHER OUTSIDE PARTIES. RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 10350/- FILED ON 31.3.08 WAS DULY PRO CESSED U/S 143[1] ON 09.02.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS MODULE. AFTER PIN POINTING THE DOWNSIZING OF GROSS PROFIT ON SALE OF KNITTED CLOTH AS ALSO IN R/O OF FABRICATION JOB WORK CHARGE S, AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR, NON-MAINTENANCE OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR THESE SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS, RECE IPT OF MAJOR CHUNK OF JOB WORK CHARGES IN CASH AMOUNTING T O RS. 689105/-, NON-ACCOUNTING FOR THE VAT @ 4% ON THE CL OSING STOCK SHOWN AT RS. 31603/- AND IN ORDER TO COVER UP LEAKAGE OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF UN-VOUCHED AND UNVERIFIABL E NATURE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED, THE A.O. MADE A LUMP SU M 3 TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- ON AGREED BASIS B Y HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO O PEN VERIFICATION. WHEREAS, IN APPEAL, THE ABOVE ADDITIO N HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED, BUT THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISE D IN THIS CASE IS THAT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ALL THE PRES CRIBED PARTICULARS REGARDING FIXED ASSETS, ADDITIONS THERE IN HAVING ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED ANY LYING AVAILABLE ON RECOR D WITH THE A.O., THE MANDATORY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS U/S 32(1) OUGHT TO HAV E BEEN GRANTED SUO MOTO BY THE A.O. AND IN ORDER TO MAKE G OOD THIS OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE A.O. BEING AGGRIEV ED, THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, DATED 27 .10.2009 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARN ED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH TH E IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2013, FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THREE EMBROIDERY MA CHINES DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED AL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATION 5 INSERTED TO SEC TION 32[1] BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 01.04.2002, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED T O MANDATORY DEDUCTION 4 OF DEPRECIATION. AT LAST, HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMP UGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY BE CANCELLED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS ARGUED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT ACCORDING TO EXPLANATION 5 INSERTED TO SECTION 32[1] BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 01.04.2002, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO MANDATORY DEDUC TION OF DEPRECIATION. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE EXPLANATION 5 INSE RTED TO SECTION 32[1] BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 01.04.2002, READS AS UN DER: EXPLANATION 5- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HE REBY DECLARED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHET HER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DE PRECIATION IN COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCOME. 7. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ASKED FOR REMA ND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME , THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT NO. 1974 DATED 29.10.2012, REPRODUCED IN PARA 4.1 (PAGE NOS. 4 & 5) OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R: KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. CIT(A)/ASR/ 12-13/920 DT. 08.10.2012 ON THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. 5 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT M/S PEARLS NETS, J OSHIPURA HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 10,350/-. PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATE D 27.10.2009. LEARNED COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE AGREED TO ASSESSEE THE CASE RS. 60,350/- (NET) AND THE A.O. MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSID ERING ALL FACTS AND ASSESSED AT RS. 60,350/-(NET) TO WHICH THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLA IM OF DEPRECIATION BEFORE YOUR GOOD HONOUR MAY KINDLY BE REJECTED AS T HE THEN A.O. HAS ASSESSED THE CASE AT RS. 60,350/-(NET) ON AGREED BA SIS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL MATERIALS FACTS. FURTHER, PERUSAL OF THE RETURN EVEN OTHERWISE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS SHOWN VALUE OF ASSETS (MACHINERY) AS ZERO IN THE SCHEDULE DPM (DEPRECIATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY) AND IN THE SC HEDULE DEP. SUMMARY OF DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS IN COL. NO. 1 TO 6, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS SHOWN THE FIGURE AS NIL WHICH SHOWS THAT THE V ALUE OF ASSET (MACHINERY) WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, HENCE THE DEPRECIATION WAS RIGHTLY NOT CONSIDERED BY THE THEN A.O. (COPIES OF RELEVANT PART OF THE RETURN IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KI ND PERUSAL. ) AS THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON RECORD, WHETHER THE MACHINERY WAS ACTUALLY USED FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OR NOT. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THAT UNDER T HE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION [2] OF SECTION 32 OF THE IT ACT, 1961, CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED FOR 8 ASS ESSMENT YEARS. BUT IN THIS CASE, IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ZE RO VALUE OF MACHINERY AND IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME NO SUCH DETAIL OF CARRIED FORWARD OF ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECATION WAS PROVIDED IN THE RETU RN AS WELL AS NO SUCH DETAILS WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143[1] OF THE IT ACT, 6 1. 2NDLY, PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT AT RS. 266/- ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDING CLAIMING OF DEPRECIATION OF MACHINERY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR MAY NOT BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE AS NEIT HER THE ASSESSEE HAS 6 CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION IN THE HE RETURN OR RAISED THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSTT. PROCEEDING S NOR CONSIDERED/REJECTED BY THE THEN A.O. WHILE FINALIZI NG THE ASSESSMENT. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG W ITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR, HAS GIVEN HIS FI NDINGS IN PARA NOS. 5, 6 & 6.1 (PAGE NOS. 5 TO 8), WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE, ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SU BMISSION INTER ALIA PERUSING THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED IN SUPPORT THE RETO AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. AS CONTAINED IN H IS ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL AND A.O.S COMMENTS CONTAINED IN HIS REMAND REPORT (SUPRA). THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF BY RECORDING AD JUDICATION GROUND OF APPEAL WISE AS UNDER: 6. ALTHOUGH, THERE ARE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISE D IN THE APPEAL MEMO, BUT ONLY ONE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN IS THAT SINCE A LL THE PARTICULARS INCLUDING ADDITION OF FIXED ASSETS, AND THAT OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WERE FURNISHED TO THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD WI TH THE A.O., THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT OF B/FD. UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OUGHT TO HAVE SUO MOTU BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE A.O. BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT UP ON THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION U/S 32[2] WHICH IS MANDATORY AND O BLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE A.O. BY VIEWING THE MATTER THAT EXPLANATION 5 TO SEC. 32[1] HAS ALREADY BEEN INSERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2002. NO DOUBT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AND BENEFIT OF U NABSORBED B/FD. DEPRECIATION SUO MOTU PROVIDED ALL THE PRESCRIBED P ARTICULARS THEREOF ARE FURNISHED IN THE RETURN, PROPER CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE IN ITS ACCOUNTS AND ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AN D PROVIDED TO THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BUT AS PER PRESENT A.OS REMAND REPORT DT. 29.12.2012 (SUPRA) VIS--VIS PERU SING THE COPY OF APPELLANTS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, TRADING-CUM-P&L ACCOUNT, COPY OF 7 SCHEDULE DPM, SUMMARY OF DEPRECATION ETC., THE APPE LLANT HAS ITSELF INDICATED ZERO FIGURE AGAINST ALL THE RELEVANT COLU MNS, NOR ANY ADDITIONAL PRESCRIBED PARTICULARS ARE REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FU RNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANTS C ONTENTIONS ARE FOND TO BE MIS-STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MIS-REPRESENTATION OF CASE. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE PRESENT A.O. THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS ITSELF AGREED TO BE ASSESSED AT NET ASSESSABLE INCOME OF RS. 60,350/ - AS PER ORDER-SHEET RECORDINGS DT. 27.10.2009, AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH OUT RAISING ANY SUCH CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT THAT TIME, WHICH GOES TO S HOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT NET ASSES SABLE INCOME FIGURES OF RS. 60,350/- PRESUMING THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN AR RIVED AT BY SAFELY PRESUMING THAT THE DEPRECIATION OR BENEFIT OF B/FD . UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWE D. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE PRESENT A.O.S HEAVY OBJECTION U/RULE 46A OF T HE IT RULES, 1962 FOR ADMITTANCE OF ANY FRESH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANTS UNEQUIVOC AL AGREEMENT TO BE ASSESSED AT AGREED NET TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 60,350 /-, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EVEN IN THE INTEREST OF NAT URAL JUSTICE, THERE ARISES NO QUESTION OF ENTERTAINING THE APPELLANTS FRESH C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY ADMITTING THE ADDL. AND FRESH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AT THIS STAGE. HAD SOME CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE DE PRECIATION AND HAD PRESCRIBED PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION AND/OR UNABSORBED B/FD. DEPRECIATION BEEN FURNISHED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE , BUT OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED OR ENTERTAINED BY THE A.O., THE POSITION WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. IT IS ALSO NOT THE APPELLANTS CASE THAT THE APPELLANTS REVISED RETURN, IF ANY, HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY PARTICULARS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING OR APPELLATE PROCEEDING REGARDING USE OF THE NEW MACHINERY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, IN OTHER WORDS ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFIED THE CONDITION OF PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THESE NEW MACHI NERY. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHERE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THESE MACHINERY AS ADDITION TO THE ASSETS BUT HAS PUT DASH (-) MARK IN DEPRECATION CLA IM COLUMN. IN FACT, HE HAS NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON ANY OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. DURING ASSESSMENT/APPELLATE PROCEEDING ASSE SSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT ANY CERTIFICATE OR DETAILS OF ERECTION OR CO MMISSIONING OF THESE NEW MACHINERIES. CERTAIN BILL WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN TO PURCHASE OF EXHAUST FANS, TUBE LIGHTS, STARTER, SM ALL EMBROIDERY MACHINE BUT NONE OF THESE BILLS PERTAIN TO ANY EXPE NDITURE REGARDING ERECTION OR COMMISSIONING OF THESE MACHINERIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS 8 SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MACHINERY A/C AND IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED REBATE ON BROKEN PART OF MACHINERY AS LATE AS ON 11/01/2007 WHICH FURTHER RAISES DOUBT WHETHER THESE NEW MACHIN ERIES WERE PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN HIS SUB MISSION DATED 23.08.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO SHOW EVIDENCE BY STATING THAT PUT TO USE CONDITION WAS REFLECTED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT ITSELF. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ASSESSEE SUBMISSIONS IS AS UNDER:- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ISSUE THAT THE MACHINERY WAS PUT TO USE FOR MANUFACTURING PROCESS IN THE PREVIOU S YEAR WAS DULY CONSIDERED AND REFLECTED FROM THE TRADING ACCOUNT I TSELF. THE TRADING ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE RETURN WAS AS UNDER:- I) BY SALE RS. 1,50,432/- II) BY FABRICATION (KNITTING WORK) RS. 2,01,308/- III) BY JOBWORK (EMBROIDERY WORK) RS. 9,32,047/- RS. 12,83,787/- CLOSING STOCK RS. 47,751/- RS. 13,31,538/- 6.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH TRADING ACCOUNT AND I FIN D THAT NOWHERE IN TRADING ACCOUNT KNITTING WORK OR EMBROID ERY WORK HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED NOW IN ASS ESSEES SUBMISSION AS SHOWN ABOVE. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SQUAR ELY COVERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CA SE OF GOETZA INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 284 ITR 323(SUPREME COURT ). WHERE I WAS HELD THAT INCOME CANNOT BE MODIFIED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WITHOUT REVISING THE RETURN. BUT O N THE FACT OF THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE UNDERSIGNED IS CONSTRAI NED TO INTERFERE WITH THE A.O.S ACTION AT THIS STAGE OTHE RWISE ANY DEVIATION NOW WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO RETRACTION OF THE AGREEMENT MUTUALLY ARRIVED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 284 ITR 323 ( SC). HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT INCOME CANNOT B E MODIFIED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WITHOUT REVISING T HE RETURN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REVISED I TS RETURN. THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAN IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDI A LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). 10. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACC ORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2013 PASS ED BY 10 LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR, BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD MAY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: PEARL NETS, JOSHIPURA, ISLAMABAD, A MRITSAR 2. ITO, WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.