TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laiming of depreciation is justified. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax to that extent is upheld by the Tribunal also. Tribunal in impugned order remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to inquire into the question of whether the assets were put to use in the relevant year before adding the block of assets, or not is a relevant factor to be established by the assessee and thereafter the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is required to pass a speaking order. There is sufficient force in the arguments of the Revenue in regard to such a finding recorded especially in view of the order passed in I.C.D.S. Ltd..[ 2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] . At this stage, the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carrying on with charitable activity of imparting education in Tattihalli, Mundgod, Uttara Kannada and also imparting education of tailoring to the needy poor people on charitable lines. The appellant assessee filed its returns of income for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 on 29.6.2011 and 29.9.2012 declaring nil income. The returns were selected for scrutiny and assessments were completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(2) of the Act by order dated 31.3.2014 and 7.8.2014 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively disallowing the claim of depreciation for both the years on the ground that the assessee has not earned any income out of the use of the assets. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect and he should pass speaking and reasoned order as to whether assets in question were used by the assessee in relevant years for regular business activity of the assessee and thereafter decide this issue as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. 6. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is correct and if no income is earned from the use of the assets during the relevant year for the regular business activity, then depreciation is allowable. But the Tribunal also felt that whether the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case. 2. Whether the Tribunal was erred in law in not holding that the use of asset is not a necessary ingredient for allowing depreciation after the introduction of concept of block of assets in the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the facts and circumstance of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the Appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), and reversed the proper finding of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and more so when the authorities below had not disputed the use of the Assets and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstance of the case. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue Sri K.V. Aravind, vehemently contended that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the trucks would be business income, or income derived in the course of business, and has been so assessed. Hence, it fulfills the aforesaid second requirement of Section 32 of the Act viz. that the asset must be used in the course of business. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. 11. The Tribunal agreed with the contentions urged on behalf of the assessee that if no income is earned from the use of assets during the relevant year for regular business activity of the assessee, then claiming of depreciation is justified. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax to that extent is upheld by the Tribunal also. However, the Tribunal in impugned order, as referred to supra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
