M/s. Kalathia Engineering & Construction Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 955/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6106 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Unabsorbed depreciation; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 32; 147; 148; 263; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 955/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. KALATHIA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. KALTHIA HOUSE, 193, SATYAGRAH CHHAVNI, OPP. ISCON MALL, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACK8944N APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 07 -02-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 -02-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD DATED 12.02.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006- 07. ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 2 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS U NDER:- 1. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN HOL DING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS VALID. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT A LL DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND NO NEW INFORMATION WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T IS BAD IN LAW, AND THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW AND REOPENING O F ASSESSMENT BE CANCELLED DENOVO. 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.21,81,367/- ON NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY PURCHA SED DURING THE YEAR. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION BE ALLOWED U /S.32 OF THE I.T. ACT AS CLAIMED, AND THEREFORE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BE CANCELLED NOW. 3. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES WERE HEARD AT LENGTH. CASE RECORDS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 18(6) OF THE ITAT RULES. 4. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.12.00 6 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.0 6.2008 BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 13784470/- ON A RETURN ED INCOME OF RS. 12400750/-. THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED A ND THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT READ AS UNDER :- REGARDING : M/S. KALTHIA ENGINEERING & CO NSTRUCTION LTD. PLOT NO.6, ADITYA BUN GALOWS, OPP. SAL HOSPITAL, DRIVE IN ROAD, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD. ASST. YEAR : 2006-07 PAN : : AAACK8944N ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 3 REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) OF THE I.T. ACT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, CANALS ETC. HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.12.2006 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF 1,24,00,750/-. ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS FINALISED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.06.2008 AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.1,37,84,470/-. 2. ON PERUSAL OF CASE RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED THAT D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y.2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TOTAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.5 8,78,445/- INCLUDING DEPRECIATION OF RS.57,07,177/- ON PLANT AND MACHINERY INCLUDING NEW PLANT & MACHINERY ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING ANY ARTICLE OR THING, ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.21,87,367/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE DETAIL OF THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN BELO W. WDV ADDITION BETWEEN 01.04.05 AND 30.09.05 SALE TOTAL ADDITION BETWEEN 01.10.05 TO 31.03.06 ADMISSIBLE DEPRECI- ATION ON SI.NO.4 DEPRECI- ATION ADMISSI BLE ON SR.NO.5 TOTAL ADMISSIBLE DEPRE- CIATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12779945 4354497 725530 16408912 14192971 2461337 @ 15% 1084473 @ 7.5% 3525810 DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE 3223407 2483770 5707177 EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE 7620 70 1419297 2181367 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE REASONS TO BE LIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.21,81,367/- WHICH HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO THAT EXTENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2Q06-07 AND IS REQUIRED TO BE REASS ESSED AS THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERI AL FACTS. CASE RECORDS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (SUDHENDU DAS) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD 5. THE LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT ALL THE NECE SSARY DETAILS WERE FILED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE A.O. HA S COMPLETED THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS FURNISHED. T HEREFORE, REOPENING THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT AFTER 4 YEARS IS BAD IN LAW. I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 4 THE LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE U/ S. 142(1) OF THE ACT (EXHIBIT 89 & 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE A.O. HAD ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF ADDITIONS MADE TO FIXED ASSETS ALONG WIT H THE COPIES OF BILLS/VOUCHERS AND DETAILS OF ALL THE DELETIONS MADE TO FIXED ASSE TS. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT TO THIS SPECIFIC QUERY, THE ASSESSEE V IDE REPLY DATED 16.04.2008 (EXHIBITED AT PAGES 94 TO 96 OF THE PAPER BOOK) HAS FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF T HE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2008 AND THE DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX A CT WAS ALLOWED. 6. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL PAR TICULARS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND THE DETAILS WERE VERIFIED BY TH E A.O. BEFORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 7. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT READ AS UNDER:- [INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE] THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSE SS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PRO CEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HER EAFTER IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR): PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS F ROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 5 FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DIS CLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSM ENT YEAR. 8. STRONG RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE PROVISO MENT IONED HEREINABOVE. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORE-STATED PROVISO SHOWS THAT THE A.O. CANNOT TAKE ACTION UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. UNLESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCL OSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENTS FOR TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PROVISO SAYS TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY THE WOR DS FULLY AND TRULY ARE TWO LIMBS AND HAVE TO BE READ JOINTLY. THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE DISCLOSED FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS BUT WHETHER THESE FACTS ARE TRUE HAV E TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND. 9. EXHIBIT AT PAGE NO. 40 IS THE STATEMENT OF DEPRECIA TION AS PER INCOME TAX RULES AND THE SAME IS AS UNDER:: KALTHIA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. ANNEXURE- 1 TO FORM 3CD STATEMENT OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME-TAX RULES/A CT ADDITON DEPRECIATION SR. NO. ASSETS WDV AS ON 01.04.05 ON OR BEFORE SEPT./ 05 ON OR AFTER SEPT. 05 DEDUCTIO N DURING THE YEAR TOTAL BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2006 NORMAL ADDITIONAL RATE BEFORE SEPT.05 ADDITONAL RATE AFTER SEPT. 05 TOTAL WDV AS ON 31.03.200 6 1 BLOCK - 1-5% - -- BUILDIN G 196.015 -- -- -- 196.015 9,801 - - - - 9,801 186,214 2 BLOCK - II-10%- -- FURNIT URE & FIXTURE 286,327 217,3 4 3 79,216 - 582,886 54,328 - - - - 54,328 528,558 3 BLOCK - 12,779,9 4,354, 14,192 725,530 30,601,883 3,416,9 20% 870,899 10.00% 1,419 5,707,1 24,894,70 ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 6 III - 15%--- MAHIN ERIES 45 497 ,971 80 ,297 77 7 4 BLOCK - IV- 60%--- COMP UTERS 27,105 71,460 160,00 1 - 258.566 10 7,139 - - -- - 107,139 151,427 TOTAL 13,289,3 92 4,643, 300 14,432 ,188 725,530 31,639,350 3,588,2 48 870,899 1,419 ,297 5,878,4 45 25,760,90 6 10. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED CHART THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE BLOCK OF MACHINERIES . SECTION 32 (IIA) PROVIDES FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND THE SAME READ AS UN DER:- [(IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (O THER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING [ OR IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION, TRANSMISS ION OR DISTRIBUTION] OF POWER], A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO TWENTY PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE(II ): 11. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORE-STATED PROVISION SHOWS THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING OR IS IN THE BUS INESS OF GENERATION TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF POWER. THE UNDISPUT ED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD, CANALS ETC. THEREFORE, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE DISCLOSED FULL MATERIAL FACTS BUT CERTAINLY THE FACTS WERE NOT TRUE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, THER E ARE TWO LIMBS IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 WHICH ARE FULLY AND T RULY, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SATISFY TWIN CONDITIONS NAMELY (I) THERE IS A FULL DISCLOSURE AND (II) THE DISCLOSURE IS TRUE. AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 7 THE ACT WHEREIN POWERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE COMMI SSIONER FOR REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE ERRONE OUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITI ON OF LAW THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS NAMELY (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND (II) IT IS PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT RECOURSE CANNOT B E HAD TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THIS PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. 243 ITR 83. BY THE SAME ANALOGY, THE TWIN CONDITIONS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 HAVE TO BE SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF ONE OF THEM (AS THE CASE IN HAND) IS NOT SAT ISFIED THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD GIVE WAY TO THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 12. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. I N HIS WISDOM MAY HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BUT THEN TO MITIG ATE SUCH REVENUE LEAKAGES THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED FOR THE REOPENING OF T HE ASSESSMENT. NO DOUBT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED FOR PRECAUTION IN THE MISU SE OF POWER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BY PROVIDING CHECKS AND BALANCES BUT IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED THAT FALSE CLAIMS OR UNLAWFUL CLAIMS BY THE ASSESSE E CAN GO AWAY IF THE REOPENING IN SUCH CASES (AS THE CASE IN HAND) IS QU ASHED. 13. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HA ND IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. TH E CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS ILLEGAL AND THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY R EOPENED THE ASSESSMENT TO WITHDRAW THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 21,81,3 67/-. ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 8 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THREE JU DGMENTS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT NAMELY: (I) NIKO RESOURCES LTD. 229 TAXMANN.COM86 (II) SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT 216 TAXMANN.COM 211 (III) ALFA ICA (INDIA) LTD. 217 TAXMANN.COM 129. 15. IN THE FIRST JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT HAS LAID DOWN THE RATIO THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO REVEAL THE PRIM ARY FACTS AND TO DRAW THE INFERENTIAL FACTS WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE HAVING REVEALED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE D ISCLOSED FULL AND COMPLETE FACTS AND ON SCRUTINY, AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT ALL THESE DETAILS ARE EXAMINED, NO CHANGE OF OPINION IS PERMISSIBLE. AS W E HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE TRUE FACTS RELATING TO ITS CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, CANALS ETC AND DEFINITELY NO T ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN H AND ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. 16. IN THE SECOND JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE FACTS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AND SUBSEQ UENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED TO RE-EXAMINE THE SAID ISSUE ON PREMISE TH AT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAD TO BE DISALLOWED. ONCE AGAIN THE FACTS ARE CLEARLY DIS TINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND INASMUCH AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR W HICH HE WAS NEVER ENTITLED FOR. ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 9 17. THE THIRD JUDGMENT WOULD ALSO DO NO GOOD TO THE ASS ESSEE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE DISPUTE RELATED TO THE CLAIM FOR CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON PART O F ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THE RE-EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION WAS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW BECAUSE THE A .O. WANTED TO REEXAMINE THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIM ITSELF IS ILLEGAL AND UNLAW FUL AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE DISALLOWED BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RE-EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION BECAUSE ON THE FACE OF IT, IT IS BAD IN LAW. 18. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF HOND A SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. 340 ITR 53 HAS HELD THAT MATERIAL PARTICULA R REFERRED TO IN FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 NOT ONLY REFERS TO DETAILS IN RETURN BUT ALSO TO EXPLANATIONS AND DETAILS FURNISHED DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE MATERIAL LIES EMBEDDED IN MATERIAL OR EVIDE NCE, WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE UNCOVERED BUT DID NOT UNCOVER, I S NOT A GOOD GROUND TO DENY OR STRIKE DOWN A NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT EXPRESSION FAILURE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED MA TERIAL FACTS ALSO RELATES TO STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 19. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TRULY DIS CLOSED THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION Y ET HE IS CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR WHICH HE WAS NEVER ENTITLED FOR. 20. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT IS VA LID AND LAWFUL AND DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 955- AHD-2015 . A.Y. 2006-07 10 21. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEP RECIATION. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE ELIGI BLE BUSINESS FOR THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. NOR THE LD. COUNSEL SERIOU SLY CONTESTED THIS GROUND OF THIS APPEAL, THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 - 02- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY AC COUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 14/02/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD