Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 535 - ITAT CHENNAIReopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition made towards provision for doubtful debts as well as confirmation of disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation - HELD THAT:- There is a live and clear nexus between the said information and the reasons to believe escapement of income, formed on that basis, the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess cannot be called into question as was sought to be canvassed before us. Thus, we hold that the entire reassessment in this case is valid and therefore, the reopening of assessment is upheld Allowability of provision for doubtful debts, the assessee has claimed provisions for doubtful debts and the same is disallowed and added back by the assessee itself in computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. At the same time, the same is required to be added in computing total income under the normal provisions of the Act. Having the assessee not done so, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the provisions for doubtful debts and advances which was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. Disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation, the assessee has claimed of depreciation of ₹.1,14,96,325/- as unabsorbed depreciation loss of the assessment year 1999-2000 to 2001-02. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the claim of unabsorbed depreciation loss of the assessment year 1999-2000 to 2001- 02 was not acceptable in view of the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Times Guaranty [2010 (6) TMI 516 - ITAT, MUMBAI] the same was disallowed. Since the claim of unabsorbed depreciation loss of the assessment year 1999-2000 to 2001-02 is not eligible for relief granted by amendment to section 32(2) in the assessment year 2002-03, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not placed reliance of any higher Court’s decision against the decision of Mumbai Special Bench order in the case of DCIT v. Times Guaranty (supra), which was followed by the authorities below. - Decided against assessee.
|