TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is engaged in the business of manufacturing of material handling equipments and power unit generation. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 25-10-2005 declaring total income of ₹ 3,63,33,940/-. A revised return was thereafter filed by the assessee on 28-08-2006 declaring total income of ₹ 3,78,33,944/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee was the owner of a premises at 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd floor, Nariman Point admeasuring 966 sq.ft. The said premises had been given on lease to IDBI principal Asset Management Co. which expired on 23-04-2004. During the year under consideration, the assessee thus had received rent from the said premises for a period of 23 days amounting to & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(Appeals) in an appeal filed by the assessee and it was submitted on behalf of the assessee before him that the property in question was not occupied by its whole time Director and Chairman but the same remained vacant after 23-04-2004. It was contended that depreciation on the said property was wrongly claimed and the same, therefore, should be disallowed. It was contended that the assessee thus was entitled to the benefit available u/s 23(1)(c) as the property had remained vacant after 23-04-2004. The learned CIT(Appeals) did not find merit in this contention of the assessee. According to him, the assessee had no intention of letting out the property once it had been vacated by the tenant on 23-04-2004 and it, therefore, was not entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee company. Before the learned CIT(Appeals), it was submitted on behalf of the assesee that this position was factually incorrect and even the depreciation on the property was wrongly claimed by the assessee. In this regard, the learned CIT(Appeals), however, has not given any finding/conclusion. We, therefore, restore this matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the claim of the assessee that the property was not occupied by its whole time Director and Chairman and it has remained vacant after 23-04-2004. If the claim of the assessee is found to be correct on verification, the AO is directed to allow the benefit to the assessee available u/s 23(1)(c). Ground No.1 of the assessee s appeal is accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
