TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of a valid return can be entertained by the appellate authorities and more so the ITAT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964 (4) TMI 18 - SUPREME Court) had held that the powers of CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the AO; that the First Appellate Authority has wider powers, in that “he can do what the ITO can do and can also direct him to do what he failed to do. “ . The question of limitation on the ld. AO would have no relevance in view of the wider powers of the First Appellate Authority. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Raja Rani Gulati vs CIT reported in (2011 (10) TMI 78 - Allahabad High Court ). We also find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed return of income, but only in the revised computation filed before completion of assessment proceedings. 3. The brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of wire cloth both metallic and synthetic which are used in paper making factories. In addition to this, the assessee is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of chemicals. The assessee filed the original return of income on 24.09.2009 which was later revised on 15.01.2011. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed additional depreciation on wind mill to the tune of ₹ 72,34,810/-. This claim was rejected by the ld. AO in view of the decision of the decision of Hon ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised computation filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/284 ITR 323 (SC). 6. In response to this, the ld. AR argued that the decision of the Goetze India Ltd. case is not applicable to the appellate authorities and hence the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) by considering the revised computation of income is valid. He further argued that the allowance of additional depreciation on wind mill is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Hon ble Madras High Court : (a) CIT vs VTM Limited [2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad) (b) CIT vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477 (Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (All). 7.1. We also find that the veracity of the claim of additional depreciation on wind mill was never disputed by the ld. AO. It is also seen that there was a specific query raised by the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings on the depreciation issue. The addition was made on the sole ground that no plausible explanation was offered by the assessee regarding the fact why it had not claimed the same in the revised return filed by him. We find that this issue on merits is now settled in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Hon ble Madras High Court :- The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs VTM Limited [2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad) has held as under :- In the case on hand, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We, therefore, do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law to entertain this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. CIT vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477 (Mad) The assesse,e engaged in the business of manufacture of oil seeds, moulded rubber par5ts etc., apart from generation of power, set up two wind mills in addition to the already existing four wind mills and claimed additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting additional depreciation under section 31(1)(iia) was confirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal by the Department : Held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
