9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting to Rs. 280,56,837/- without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that sum of Rs. 2,80,58,837/- is infusion of capital without considering the reconciliation statement furnished before him, which clearly shows non-application of mind. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the evidences furnished before him and went on to hold that the assessee failed to furnish evidences to substantiate the case, which is bad in law. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the accumulated deprec1ation represents the cumulative value of the earlier years depreciation charged in the books of accounts, which have been duly added with the book profit while computing the Income tax by claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision for depreciation and fixed asset account. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the explanation filed by the assessee and according to him, the assessee could not explain difference in capital account by filing necessary reconciliation statement. The Assessing Officer further was of the opinion that although assessee claims that Accountant has passed wrong journal entries in respect of provision for depreciation, but the assessee has failed to explain how an amount of Rs. 2,91,08,986/- has been arrived at under accumulated depreciation . Therefore, he opined that claim of the assessee that by inadvertent mistake the Accountant has wrongly credited provision for depreciation account to capital account cannot be accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee by an inadvertent error passed wrong journal entry to square up provision for depreciation account and credited the amount to capital account instead of fixed asset account, due to this, capital account of the assessee has been overstated to the extent of Rs. 2,80,58,837/-. The said anomaly has been rectified in the assessment year 2018-19 by passing necessary rectification entries. All these evidences were furnished before the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A), but the authorities below have rejected all the evidences filed by the assessee and made additions towards difference in capital account u/s.68 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th reference to amount outstanding in provision for depreciation account. If at all, the assessee has explained difference and filed necessary journal entries to explain the fact that wrong journal entries has been passed to capital account, then there is no reason for authorities below to observe that no evidence has been filed to explain the difference. Even before us, the said difference is unreconciled. However, considering the fact that assessee has requested for one more opportunity to go back to the Assessing Officer to explain difference in capital account, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Hence, we set aside the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
