TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied in taking up the examination of depreciation claimed which is beyond the issues selected for limited scrutiny without obtaining prior approval from CIT/Pr. CIT. AO was not justified in making disallowance out of the depreciation claim of the assessee and therefore, the same is deleted. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.3084/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2019 - SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Deepak Chopra, CA For The Respondent : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This is an assessee s appeal directed against the order of ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue of ₹ 1.79 crores from transportation of goods and is very much engaged in the transportation business of hiring or leasing of vehicles. 3.3.The conclusion of lower authorities being erroneous and contrary to the facts of the case has to be ignored. (Tax Effect a/above ground. 9,66,577/-) 4.1.The learned assessing officer has erred in restricting the appellant's claim for depreciation allowance only to 15% of the written down value of vehicles block. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer. 4.2. On proper appreciation of facts of the case and applicable law the appellant having used the vehicles in the business of running them on hire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that in this clause, 18 items of other expenses are listed but this does not include depreciation. Thereafter he pointed out that depreciation is covered under item no. 45 of the return of income. He submitted that therefore, it is apparent that the limited scrutiny is not for the purpose of examining the claim of the assessee for depreciation. It was limited to examine the claim of the assessee on account of other expenses specified by the assessee in clause 39 of the return of income available on page no. 105 of the paper book. He also submitted that as per CBDT instructions dated 29.12.2015 available on pages 49 and 50 of the paper book, it has been specified that questionnaire u/s. 142(1) of IT Act in Limited Scrutiny cases sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. CIT/CIT and therefore, the assessment order is bad in law. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT (A). 6. I have considered the rival submissions. First of all, I reproduce Para no. 5 from the order of CIT (A). This is as under. 5. I have considered the above grounds of appeal, statement of facts and written submissions filed by the appellant and also perused the assessment order. The first ground is general in nature and no adjudication is needed. In its 2nd ground the appellant raised that the scope of limited scrutiny is confirmed only to the issues for which purpose the case was taken up on limited scrutiny and the issue of restricting the claim of depreciation on the goods vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the second ground is dismissed. 7. From the above Para reproduced from the order of CIT (A), it is seen that ld. CIT (A) has also stated in this Para that technically in the limited scrutiny, other issues not supposed to be examined unless there is an approval from CIT/Pr. CIT and after the approval only, it can be wide open to examine issues other than issues raised for the limited scrutiny purpose. But thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) has gone back and she says that AO has examined the entire expenses claimed / debited to profit and loss account as per the requirement of limited scrutiny and proved that the appellant wrongly claimed depreciation @ 30%. We have already seen that as per the limited scrutiny notice app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
