TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not reflect whether any one of these arguments were raised by the appellant before them, therefore, such arguments cannot be allowed to be raised before this Court for the first time. The Tribunal in the impugned order has relied on the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior in M/s. Anamay Construction Co. vs. UOI & Ors [2015 (10) TMI 2740 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT]wherein it was held that the assessee had engaged his own trucks for transporting earth to facilitate laying of roads. Under such circumstances, the assessee cannot be said to be in the business of hiring out his trucks for removal of earth to make him entitled for higher rate of depreciation, as removal and transportation of earth are only sub-processes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation @ 30% instead of 15% claimed by the assessee on the above mentioned items (trucks/dumpers) is not allowable, therefore, excess depreciation amounting to ₹ 22,77,188 claimed by the assessee is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 03.01.2016, the appellantassessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota rejected the appeal vide its order dated 05.12.2017. Against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota the appellant-assessee preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 06.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore the appeal ought to be admitted and decided on merits. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) as also of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal does not indicate whether any of the aforesaid two arguments were raised on behalf of the appellant-assessee before either of the forums. On a pointed query by the Court, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since these are arguments of law, they can be raised directly before this Court as the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order, we find that the two arguments, which the appellant has raised now on the basis of which he proposed two qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
