TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he block. Also, depreciation on the said building premises was allowed in A.Y. 2012-13 which is the assessment year relevant to the year of purchase. Furthermore, detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) at para 6 has not been controverted by bringing any positive material on record. The issue under consideration is also covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of G.N. Agarwal [1993 (8) TMI 5 - BOMBAY High Court]. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 5094/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - Shri R. C. Sharma, AM Revenue by : Ms. N. Hemalatha Assessee by : Shri Manish J Shah ORDER Per R. C. Sharma ( A. M ) This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-49, Mumbai dated 24/05/2017 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.5 admeasuring about 500 sq.ft. and Unit No.6 admeasuring about 500 sq.ft. in the upper ground floor of the Building known as 36 Turner Road. The purchase of the said premises included furnitures and fixtures and office equipments and appliances as per Annexure T' to the agreement which included ACs, security system, lift, telephone system, sound system, electrical installation etc. Further, I find that depreciation on the said building premises was allowed in the A.Y.2012-13, which is the assessment year relevant to the year of purchase, vide assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 26.2.2015. 6.2.1. The appellant is engaged in the business of trading of painting, artefacts and antique art material. The appellant has business receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es since last week of September 2012 also have the address of Nepean Holdings Reality LLP, 36 Turner Road, Bandra (W),Mumbai. These facts clearly show that the appellant was using the said premises for its business activities during the A.Y.2013-14, as a going concern and merely because there was no sale receipt during the said assessment year cannot be a sufficient ground to hold that there was no business activity of the appellant from the said building. 6.2.2. In fact, even if it is held that there is a temporary lull in the business activity, the same cannot be a ground for disallowing the entire depreciation claimed by the appellant which include depreciation on the building/office in Block No.1 of the block of assets as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever not a matter that can turn entirely on the assessee's hopes alone. There should be evidence or material to show that the assessee took efforts to keep the business alive in the hope of reviving the same. Maintaining the office and establishment, complying with the statutory formalities, not disposing of the plant and machinery, incurring expenses on the repair of plant and machinery etc. are some of the indications of nurturing the hopes of reviving the business. The above are only illustrative instances and are by no means exhaustive and the question as to whether the assets were kept ready for use in the business is largely to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. In our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les invoice for the Preceding P.Y. bore the address of the said Bandra premises. Thus, the presumption drawn by the assessing officer that asset was not put to use is baseless. The asset was already a part of the block. Also, depreciation on the said building premises was allowed in A.Y. 2012-13 which is the assessment year relevant to the year of purchase. Furthermore, detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) at para 6 has not been controverted by bringing any positive material on record. The issue under consideration is also covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of G.N. Agarwal 75 Taxman Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for allowing assessee s claim of depreciation. 30. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
