Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 461 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction claim u/s 80IA and excess claim of depreciation on construction of road (As per BOT agreement) - Case of assessee as selected for limited scrutiny - HELD THAT:- Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examining claim of depreciation at higher rate/higher additional depreciation, mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report & ITR and mismatch in amount paid to related person u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in audit report & ITR - claim of the deduction u/s 80IA was clearly not the subject matter of limited scrutiny and where the AO has failed to examine and verify the said claim of the assessee, the order so passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous as the same was not within the scope of limited scrutiny at first place and the AO is duty bound to restrict himself to the reasons recorded for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny. We, therefore, agree with the contentions advanced by the ld AR that on this matter, revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be exercised by the ld PCIT as the same would tantamount to broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was originally vested with the A.O while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act in case of limited scrutiny case.. Claim of depreciation/amortization relating to two roads/highway stretches constructed by the assessee company under BOT agreement - As per claim of amortization as guided by CBDT circular no. 9/2014 dated 23.04.2014 where there is no dispute that two roads/highway stretches have been constructed/developed by the assessee under the BOT agreements, the assessee shall be eligible to claim amortization of the whole of the cost incurred in creation of infrastructural facility of road/highway evenly over the period of concessionaire agreement after excluding the time take for creation of such facility rather than the rate of depreciation as prescribed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, as noted that on enquiry by the Assessing officer, the assessee has submitted that this is the second year of claim of amortization wherein it has claimed amortization of ₹ 4,01,84,929 for a period of 365 days as against amortization of ₹ 3,22,32,261 for a period of 293 days claimed in the previous assessment year 2014-15 and detail statement as part of the audit report was also submitted in respect of both the road/highway stretches disclosing respective cost of construction/development, the period of concessionaire agreement and the amount of amortization determined for the year under consideration. The same was duly examined by the Assessing officer and no adverse finding has been recorded by him. Thus where the assessee is eligible for claim of amortization as per CBDT circular no. 9/2014 dated 23.04.2014 and the same has accordingly been claimed and allowed by the Assessing officer after due verification and examination, the order so passed by the Assessing officer cannot be held as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|