9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal in I.T.A. No. 322/Chny/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 was taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was not properly substantiated. It was further submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the case on merits. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also submitted no details pertaining to the travel details of the Authorized person for signing the Form 35 were called for, in fact, the flight tickets substantiating the travel detail of the Authorized person were readily available. By filing the travel details of the Authorized person for signing the Form 35, who was ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the appeal and adjudicating the appeal on merits. In view of the above, we direct the assessee to file complete the details as required by the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is also directed to consider the details as may be submitted by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal afresh and decide the case on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 3383/Chny/2018 [AY: 2011-12] 5. By filing Memorandum of additional grounds of appeal, the first ground raised by the assessee relates to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. However, the above ground was not raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of 50% disallowance of depreciation. 8. The assessee has claimed a total depreciation of Rs..51,60,173/- in the profit and loss account towards factory building. While completing the scrutiny assessment for the assessment year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer noted that 50% of the factory building was let out to two different parties as such only 50% of the building was actually used by the assessee and 50% depreciation claim was disallowed for the assessment year 2012-13. On verification of the lease deed for letting out the factory building, the Assessing Officer noted that the same was let out from the year 2009-10 onwards and the assessee was in receipt of rental income for letting out the factory building in the company's hand for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome is earned by the lessor from letting out of building/premises, the income needs to be offered for taxation under the head "income from house property" only. The AO has therefore rightly brought the rental income under the head house property which the assessee himself has claimed under the head 'other sources' and claimed dividend and claimed depreciation. The appellant ground on this issue is accordingly dismissed. On the issue of depreciation the appellant contended that the very nature and purpose of allowing depreciation for the exploitation of assets will be defeated if the income is taken under the head "income from House Property" and the assessee is denied depreciation. Having the rental income held as income under the hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
