TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or not? - Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement. For uninterrupted supply of power, assessee during the year, acquired and installed new P M i.e. power plant at Morak and a windmill at Jaisalmer for production of electricity for captive consumption in manufacturing of cement. The electricity produced from power plant at Morak was directly utilized in manufacturing of cement whereas the electricity produced from windmill at Jaisalmer was supplied to Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. who in turn reduce that quantity of electricity from the power bill raised on the assessee. On these P M, assessee claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Firstly, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l depreciation made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 18,16,98,068/- specifically when the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) w.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14? 3.2 Appeal no.213/2017 1. Whether the Tribunal was legally and factually correct in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment proceedings which were initiated adhering to the provisions of section 147? 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally and factually correct in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 13,20,232/- specifically when the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab-initio. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR has also submitted that both the issues regarding the claim of additional depreciation on power plant and windmill, and the claim of deduction u/s 43B were examined in the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that when the AO in the original assessment proceeding has examined both the issues, the issuance of notice u/s 148 on those very issues is only on account of change of opinion and on such change of opinion, reassessment proceedings initiated by him even within a period of four years is illegal and bad in law. . In this case the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2008-09 where the assessment under section 143(3) was origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power bill raised on the assessee. On these P M, assessee claimed additional depreciation of ₹ 18,16,98,068/- (₹ 14,44,58,058+ ₹ 3,72,40,000) u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Firstly, in the reason recorded before issue of notice u/s 148, the AO has stated as under: In this case, assessment u/s 43(3) of the IT Act was passed on 31.12.2010 at ₹ 84,65,41,700/- as against returned income of ₹ 76,09,97,363/-Later on it is revealed that the assessee claimed and was allowed deduction of depreciation ₹ 70.53 crore, which include ₹ 18,16,98,068/- being the amount of additional depreciation on the assets of power generating units. As the additional depreciation was allowable onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
