TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to as the Act ) vide his orders dated 28-1-2005 for the same assessment year i.e. 2003-04. 2. The first common issue in these two appeals of the assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of depreciation. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the cases, hence, we will decide the common issue by taking the facts from ITA No.866/Ahd/2007 in the case of M/s. Siddharth Corporation. The ground regarding this issue reads as under:- (1) The AO has erred in making disallowance of ₹ 10,59,964 out of depreciation claim of ₹ 16,42,863 in the return of income and while making the disallowance the Assessing Officer has erred in working o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 832854 661398 4831387 2003-04 4831387 102130 582899 4350618 Aggrieved, against the action of the Assessing Officer against the disallowance of depreciation at ₹ 10,59,964/- the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. The assessee, aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), preferred second appeal before us. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri, B. Soparkar filed copy of Tribunal s order for the assessment year 1999-00 to 2001-02 in ITA No.959-961/Ahd/2005 dated 01-03-2005, whereby the Tribunal has quashed the rectification order passed u/s.154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that such amount should have been claimed by the assessee as depreciation in earlier year. In our considered view, WDV can be ascertained only by reducing the actual depreciation allowed to the assessee in assessment and not the amount which ought to have been allowed to the assessee. It is the actual depreciation allowed to the assessee which only can be reduced for ascertaining the WDV and not the amount which is notionally allowed to the assessee. Thus, in the absence of any material brought before us to show that any remedial measure was taken by the Revenue in the earlier assessment years to actually allow the depreciation to the assessee in the year in which the assessee has himself not claimed such depreciation, in our co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee contended that the writing off is on account of discount and commission deducted by six customers from their payments over a period of years. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of bad debt by observing that the assessee has continuing business relationship with these customers in whose account written off has been made and claimed as bad debt. The AO also observed that the assessee has business transaction with these parties since long and the discount, kasar or commission should have been written off in the concerned year in which the customers actually took discount by making short payment. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is in favour of assessee and against the Revenue as the assessee has written off these bad debts in its books of account. 9. After hearing the rival contentions and we find that these expenses written off by the assessee is as on account of discount, kasar and commission deducted by their customers from their payment made over a period of years. These are not bad debts as such but these are expenses of business and allowable. But the Assessing Officer has to examine the issue, whether these are crystallized in this year, or not. In principle, the expenses are allowable but the AO has to verify, in which year these have crystallized. In view of this, we set aside this common issue of the assessee s appeals to the file of AO. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
