P.K.Mohammed, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 766/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4243 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , , % BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 766/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 MR. P.K. MOHAMMED, S PROCEEDINGS 47-A, AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI- 600 058. [PAN: AACPM 7837R] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI 34. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA *+& ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR NAIK, JCIT ' /DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2017 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2017 /O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 92/CIT(A)-7/2015- 16 DATED 31.01.2017. ITA NO.766/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI P.K. MOHAMMED, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL CONTRACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSME NT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54G AT RS. 1,67,95,113/- ON THE CAPITAL GAINS WHICH AROSE FROM THE SALE OF INDUSTRIAL SHED AND BUILDING AT AMBATTUR. FURTHER, HE DISALLOWED T HE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AT RS. 1,11,733/ -. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-7, CHENNAI. DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUN D FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE AS SESSEES APPEAL. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING; DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 54G, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AND IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FRESH CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ABHINITHA FOUNDATION PVT LTD IN TC(A) NO. 811 OF 2016 DATED 06.06.2017, THE AR SOUGHT THE RELIEF. PER CONTRA, T HE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE RELEVA NT PORTION OF THE ORDER FROM THE TC(A) NO. 811 OF 2016 IS EXTRACTED AS UNDE R: 18. IN SUM, WHAT EMERGES FROM A PERUSAL OF THE RA TIO OF THE JUDGEMENTS CITED ABOVE, IN PARTICULAR, THE JUDGMENT S RENDERED BY THE ITA NO.766/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: SUPREME COURT IN GOETZES CASE AND NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD.S CASE, AND THOSE, RENDERED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. AND CIT VS MALIND LABORATORIES P. LTD. , AS ALSO THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SAM GLOBAL S ECURITIES LTD.S CASE AND JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD.S CASE, THAT, EVEN I F, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN OR EVEN THE REVISED RETURN, IT COULD STILL BE CONSIDERED, IF, T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, EITHER BY THE APPELLATE AUTHOR ITIES, (WHICH INCLUDES BOTH THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL) BY THEMSELVES, OR ON REMAND, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RELYING ON THE ABOVE RATIOS, THE CIT(A) ORDER IS SE T ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION AND APPROPRIATE D ECISION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54 F, AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AR HAS NOT PRESSE D THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIM A ND HENCE IT IS ENDORSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ' # /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) # /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 12 TH JUNE, 2017 JPV ' *34 54 /COPY TO: 1. &/ APPELLANT 2. *+& /RESPONDENT 3. 6 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 6 /CIT 5. 4 * /DR 6. /GF