MEASAGE A.N. WIRES, PATHANKOT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATHANKOT

ITA 726/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7009 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 726/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s A N Wires, Himachal House, Sunder Nagar, Pathankot [PAN: AARFA 5344A] Vs. I.T.O. Ward 6 (1), Pathankot (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vikram Aggarwal, CA Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Amritsar, {in brevity CIT(A)} bearing appeal no. 10371/2016-17 dated of order 31.10.2019, order passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pathankot (in brevity A.O) order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act date of order 09.12.2016. A.N. Wires vs. ITO ITA No- 726/Asr/2019 2 2. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. Assessee filed its return for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee had WDV of Plant & Machinery as on 01.04.2013 at Rs.55,67,834/- against the WDV of Rs.31,16,141/- which was brought forward from earlier financial years. The excess claim was due to Capital Subsidy received by the assesse, which was adjusted with the Plant & Machinery notin reserve. The ld. AO recomputed the WDV and on 31.03.2014 WDV of Plant & Machinery was calculated at Rs.26,48,720/-. Accordingly, the excess depreciation was ascertained by the ld. AO amount to Rs.3,67,754/- which was added back with the total income of the assesse. The assessee claimed that for the earlier years, for assessment year 2013-14, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for adjustment of capital investment subsidy related Plant & Machinery. As per the assessee without verification of earlier years appeal, the ld. CIT(A) passed order in favour of ld. AO. In another point Rs.50,246/- interest from bank was added back as income from other sources. But assessee claimed that this is profit earning from business and eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that opening balance of capital for assessment year 2014-15 is not correct assumption by the ld. AO. The same issue is not judicial consideration before the ld. CIT(A) related to assessment A.N. Wires vs. ITO ITA No- 726/Asr/2019 3 year 2013-14. The ld. Counsel mentioned that the ld. CIT(A) in his order observed that assessee has not filed any appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 relating to assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. Counsel filed a paper book on 02.06.2022, which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel mentioned that Form No. 35 for assessment year 2013-14 is annexed in APB page no. 13 -14. Also the notice was served by the Appellate Authority bearing notice no. CIT(A)-2/ASR/2017-18/744 dated 24.07.2017 which is annexed in APB page no.12. It is very clear that assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority related to Assessment year 2013-14. The observations of the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect. 4. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of Revenue Authorities. 5. We heard the rival submissions and relied on the document available in the record. Calculation of excess claimed of depreciation is fully depend on the WDV dated 31.03.2013. Without ascertaining the correct WDV on 31.03.2013, it is not possible to ascertain the WDV of Plant & Machinery on 01.04.2013. The ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed the facts and mentioned in the order without proper verification. With the consent of the ld. DR and Counsel of the assessee we are setting aside the issue both the excess claim of depreciation and interest, to the ld. CIT(A) for further consideration. The assessee should get reasonable opportunity for its case. A.N. Wires vs. ITO ITA No- 726/Asr/2019 4 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order