TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s capital expenditure and allowed depreciation. This order of AO attained finality. For the assessment year 2014-15 which is under consideration, the AO by following his own order allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation at the rate of 25%. When the assessee incurred expenditure for creation of an intangible asset namely the brand name Pantherkid , this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that such expenditure has to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore the assessee is entitled for depreciation u/s.32(1). This is one of the possible views taken by the Assessing Officer. PCIT is not justified in revising the order of the Assessing Officer in exercise of his power u/s.263. Exemption claimed U/s.2(14) - evidence for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Chennai dated 31.03.2019 U/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 65 days. We have heard Shri S. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. Having heard the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and the Ld.DR, this Tribunal finds that there was sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, the delay of 65 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar nature. Therefore the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation U/s.32(1) of the Act. Hence the Commissioner is not correct in revising the order in exercise of his power U/s.263 of the Act. Moreover, the company was taken over by the bank under SARFEASI Act. Therefore, nothing remains in the hands of the assessee company. Hence the revisional order cannot stand. 4. On the contrary, Shri S. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation without due application of mind. The Ld.DR very fairly submitted that the properties of the assessee company were sold under SARFEASI Act during the financial year 2013-14. However it is not known whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation. This order of the Assessing Officer attained finality. For the assessment year 2014-15 which is under consideration, the Assessing Officer by following his own order allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation at the rate of 25%. When the assessee incurred expenditure for creation of an intangible asset namely the brand name Pantherkid , this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that such expenditure has to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore the assessee is entitled for depreciation U/s.32(1) of the Act. This is one of the possible views taken by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the PCIT is not justified in revising the order of the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the assessee has purchased the land with building or not. The PCIT also found that no accounts were maintained for agricultural activity. The assessee has not furnished any evidence for consumption of electricity for agriculture. Therefore, the PCIT found that the guideline laid down by the Apex Court for treating the land as agricultural land is not complied with. Hence, he revised the order. 9. Having heard the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and the Ld.DR, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the land in question has rightly been classified as agricultural land. It is not in dispute that out of 86.5 acres of land, 66.5 acres of land was claimed to be an agricultural land. It is also not in dispute that there was electr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry as observed by the PCIT. The Assessing Officer has made thorough enquiry and bring on record the entire material facts. The Assessing Officer has also taken into consideration the valuation report obtained by the Syndicate Bank. Therefore this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made a proper enquiry and has taken one of the possible views in the assessment order. Therefore, there is no justification in revising the order of the Assessing Officer by the PCIT. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to uphold the impugned order of the PCIT. Accordingly the impugned order of the PCIT is set aside and the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
