TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Since the case was taken-up for scrutiny the Assessing Officer verified the records and found that the assessee has received an amount of ₹ 27 lakhs on account of letting out the premises. Against such receipts an expenditure of ₹ 3,20,854/- and depreciation of ₹ 3,29,695/- was claimed. It may be noticed that the assessee has treated income from letting out the premises as business income. 3. Assessing Officer however was of the opinion that the impugned income is assessable under the head property income and accordingly rejected the claim of deduction towards depreciation as well as expenditure. In this regard, he observed that the assessee was not carrying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. However, as regards the claim of depreciation as well as deduction towards administrative and establishment expenses the learned CIT(A) noticed that during the previous year appellant had used the premises for its business purpose and earned business conducting charges therefrom in which event the assessee-company is entitled to claim depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Act. He further noticed that expenditure incurred by the assessee-company was in the form of bank charges, audit fees etc., of ₹ 3,20,854/-. Since the said expenditure was incurred in the normal course of business the same was directed to be allowed. Operative portion of the Order passed by the learned CIT(A) is extracted for immediate refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd.) for providing various services to the appellant for carrying out their (i.e., appellant s) business has been furnished. This establishes the facts in respect of the said property as stated by the appellant. The A.O. has not appreciated the fact that only a portion i.e., 50% of the premises was let-out and the balance portion was held by the appellant which was put to use for its own business activities. The appellant has brought to my notice that it has earned service charges from liasioning work in subsequent years. I agree with the contention of the appellant that since the balance portion was put to use and occupied for business activities it is eligible for depreciation allowance u/s. 32 in respect of that portion. As the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground stating that the CIT(A) ignoring the fact that the assessee did not carry on any business activity directed the Assessing Officer to allow expenditure claimed in the P L account and 50% depreciation. In otherwords, neither the authorisation memo contains any noting that in the subsequent years no such activity was carried on nor was any material paper filed till date to highlight that there was no business activity conducted by the assessee in the year under consideration. 8. The case was posted from time to time since 5-5-2010 and on all these occasions though the Revenue has reported ready the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee s counsel and on 6-10-2010 the case was adjourned to 27-12-2010 by specifically sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icularly when an appeal is preferred by the Revenue. Atleast when the Bench had categorically mentioned that no further opportunity shall be given, by adjourning the case as final chance to the parties, it is the duty of both the parties to Honour the direction of the Bench and to be present with the necessary material papers. However, laxity of the Revenue authorities in not prosecuting the appeals by obtaining necessary supporting documents indicate that they are not interested in prosecuting the appeals and in a routine and casual manner this appeal appears to have been filed. No doubt, the exception proves the Rule , but in the recent past we have come across in a number of cases where the revenue authorities have not been obtaining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was perfectly justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation as well as deduction towards expenditure. As could be noticed from the Order passed by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has made a specific claim that the company had used the premises for its business purpose and had earned business conducting charges therefrom. It was also contended that even if the income is charged under the head income from house property the nature of the said income does not cease to be business income. At any rate, it cannot be said that there is no business activity. By virtue of a specific provision contained in section 22 of the Act, income earned therefrom may be assessable to tax under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
