TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2044 - ITAT DELHI] in which assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was also set aside by invoking the provisions contained u/s 263 of the Act by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan Gujrat Charitable Foundation [ 2017 (12) TMI 1067 - SUPREME COURT] and as such, depreciation on assets has to be allowed as application of income. Consequently, we hereby set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) u/s 263 of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. - ITA No.2738/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - HON BLE N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri U.N. Marwah, CA And Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that once the learned Assessing Officer on examination of the facts on record and after making all possible enquiries had accepted claim of the appellant then such an order of assessment could not be regarded as erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax had a different opinion and that too, without having established in any manner that, view adopted by the learned Assessing Officer was an impossible view. 1.4 That further the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has also failed to appreciate that, u/s 263 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot be set-aside to simply to make further enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended that the issue of claiming depreciation on assets being allowable as application of income has already been settled in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan Gujrat Charitable Foundation, Pune 402 ITR 441 (SC) by ld. CIT (E) in assessee s own case for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 27.03.2018. Ld. DR for the Revenue has failed to controvert this fact. 6. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT (E) has misdirected himself while taking the view that depreciation of ₹ 37,70,021/- has been allowed without getting into the details which amounts to double deduction by ignoring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
