TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed claim of depreciation on the boiler acquired by the assessee towards the end of the previous year without making the enquiry as to how the purchase of boiler and its leasing to another concern was for assessee's own business. The second allegation was that the boiler was second-hand, yet the provisions of s. 43(1) r/w Expln. 3 were not invoked. Third allegation was that the claim of 100% depreciation was allowed without ascertaining whether the conditions for claiming depreciation on higher rate were satisfied and the fourth allegation was that the cost of boiler for depreciation was taken at ₹ 8,17,085 whereas on the basis of details available, it was ₹ 7,77,535. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee vehem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the CIT has never stated that the information supplied by the assessee, and which is on Assessing Officer's record, was false or without basis. He further explained that since it was the case of a limited company the statutory report on the prescribed proforma as required under s. 44AB of the IT Act was also filed and computation of the entire income alongwith supporting details alongwith directors' reports and company's auditors' reports were filed and they are on the record of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which she had raised the queries and had examined the case. They drew our attention to the fact that the statutory audit report specifically mentioned that depreciation at 100% on the capitalise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable to the facts of assessee's case because there was nothing to show that the boiler had been used by any other person for purposes of his business or profession and that the main purpose of transfer of such assets to the assessee was the reduction of liability to income-tax by claiming depreciation with reference to enhanced cost. He submitted that even if such a situation were there, it would require the previous approval of the Dy. CIT. He argued that, in fact, even the provisions of Expln. 5 to s. 43(1) were not applicable as explained to the CIT in the written submissions of the assessee. 3. With these arguments and after referring to the decision reported in CIT vs. Kaunda Rice Mills (1990) 85 CTR (P H) 5 : (1989) 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arefully considered the rival submissions. In our opinion, the dissatisfaction of the learned CIT arose not because he could find the order erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, but perhaps because the order has been drafted in a way which requires lot of improvement and proper guidance to the Assessing Officer. We do find that the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the question of acquisition of the boiler and allowance of depreciation on the boiler at 100% in the assessment order. However, we find that the details as furnished before us do show that the Assessing Officer had made enquiries regarding the acquisition, cost, installation and the use of the boiler which can be gathered from the details furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
