9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 143(1)(a). The assessee moved petition under s. 154(l)(b) seeking rectification of the intimation issued under s. 143(1)(a) whereby prima facie adjustment of depreciation claim over and above 33.33 per cent was made and thus disallowed. The AO rejected the assessee's petition for rectification under s. 154 so far as it related to claim of 100 per cent depreciation on flour mills roller, vide his order, dt. 30th Sept., 1991. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records. 4. The Revenue has raised the sole ground disputing the learned CIT(A)'s direction to AO to allow depreciation @ 100 per cent on flour mill rollers as against 33.33 per cent. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x 1) is on p. 2 of paper book wherein "flour mills rollers" is mentioned, and so disallowing the assessee's claim for the reason that in the rule "floor mill rollers" are printed instead of "flour mill rollers" is not justified. He has contended that besides, the AO had proceeded against the assessee under s. 143(3) and had issued notice under s. 143(2), so thereafter issuing intimation under s. 143(1)(a) is not legally valid. He has cited Gujarat Poly-AVX Electronics Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 135 CTR (Guj) 141 : (1996) 222 ITR 140 (Guj) and Modern Fibotex India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dy. CIT & Ors. (1995) 126 CTR (Cal) 69 : (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) in his support. He has also contended that the issue as to whether 100 per cent depreciation is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to appear before him with details as per enclosure, on 8th Feb., 1991, it was thereafter no more permissible for AO to make prima facie adjustment or to issue intimation under s. 143(1)(a) as has been held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in (1995) 126 CTR (Cal) 69 and by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in (1995) 135 CTR (Guj) 141 : (1995) 222 ITR 140 (Guj). In that view of the matter considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we find that impugned order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,75,742, being the amount of assessee's claim for depreciation on flour mill rollers over and above 33.33 per cent to be quite proper and justified and we find no fault therewith. 6. The learned Departmental Representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flour mill rollers. Although we may painfully observe that even a copy of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in first appeal before learned CIT(A) has not been placed on record before us and so we are not able to appreciate as to what the other grounds were which the assessee has raised before learned CIT(A). Be that as it may it is evident from the record as also from our discussion made above, that the additional ground sought to be raised by the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue does not arise out of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). Even otherwise, the issue of additional tax is only consequential to the issue contained in ground No. 1, decided by us above. We, therefore, rejected the learned Departmental Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
