9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,20,40,609/- made by the AO by applying depreciation rate of 15% as against claim of 40% made by the assessee? 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any ground(s) of appeal raised aboe at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at an income of Rs. 14,87,39,273/- on 30.12.2008. The assessment was reopened u/s. 148 after recording the following reasons:- "Scrutiny of income tax assessment records revealed that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,52,64,974/- @40% on aircraft. As per the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory notices under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee and in response to the said notice, the A.R. of the Assessee of the assessee company appeared from time to time and made oral as well as written submissions which were considered by the AO. 2.2 The assessee company was engaged in the business of Design Engineering, Software Development and consultancy, contracting and manpower supply. As per the reasons recorded under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 the assessee had claimed depreciation on aircrafts @40% of the WDV whereas as per provisions of section 32 of the I.T. Act, 1961 depreciation on aircrafts is available @15%. Hence, excess depreciation of Rs. 2,2,40,609/- claimed by the assessee was proposed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 6. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the relevant records, especially the order of the Ld. CTI(A). We find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed and adjudicated the issue No.1 as under:- "The appellant had claimed depreciation on aircraft @40% in terms of entry no. III(3)(i) of Part-A of the Deprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 the depreciation available on aircraft is @40%, hence, it was rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessee's claim was correct and AO should also understand that depreciation on aircraft cannot be equated with depreciation on motor vehicle. The depreciation is given on plant and machinery depending on its life and maintenance cost involved in such machinery. The depreciation is allowed by the government to give part of the profit to the businessman and he can make another plant and machinery at the end of the old machinery life to continue his business. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the AO should understand the basic requirement of law and discuss the matter with his supervise officers before reopening the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
