9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Filing of audit report u/s 80-IA(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Allowance of depreciation rate on certain assets u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Filing of Audit Report u/s 80-IA(7) 2.1. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that filing of the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory, and if the audit report is filed before the assessment, the requirement of section 80-IA(7) is met. 2.2. The CIT(A)'s decision was supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts of Delhi and Karnataka, which held that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) are directory. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IA for windmills installed in earlier financial years. 2.3. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on judicial interpretations. 2.4. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.2265(Mds)/2012 was dismissed. Issue 2: Allowance of Depreciation Rate u/s 1543.1. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 29-12-2011, and the assessee claimed 80% depreciation on certain assets, which the Assessing Officer allowed at 15%. 3.2. The assessee filed a rectification petition u/s 154, claiming that the 15% depreciation was a mistake and should be rectified to 80%, providing supporting documents. 3.3. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification petition, stating that the higher depreciation rate was not applicable to certain assets like transformers and breakers, citing the judgment in CIT vs. Adar Tea Products Co. 3.4. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to allow 80% depreciation, following the Tribunal's decision in Asian Handloom vs. DCIT. 3.5. The Revenue raised an additional ground, arguing that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus not rectifiable u/s 154. 3.6. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the CIT(A) had considered the appeals independently, even though disposed of simultaneously. 3.7. The Tribunal concluded that the issue of the rate of depreciation required detailed enquiry and verification of fresh materials, which is not a mistake apparent from the record. 3.8. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in adjudicating the matter on merits and upheld the Assessing Officer's order u/s 154, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. 4. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue regarding the assessment order u/s 143(3) was dismissed, and the appeal concerning the section 154 order was allowed. Orders pronounced on Tuesday, the 11th of June, 2013 at Chennai.
|
