9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,30,37,257/- made on account of excess depreciation. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the Disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 1,32,62,985/- on intangible software. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order by holding that there was a change of opinion despite that fact that there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose truly & fully business activities and the fact that intangible assets on which depreciation is claimed on higher rate." 2. The facts in brief are that, in the case of the assessee original asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment." 3. In response to the said notice, assessee filed its objection to challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and it was submitted that it has claimed depreciation on computer software amounting to Rs. 1,32,62,985/- @ 60%, and therefore, there was no reason to restrict the depreciation to 25% on the computer software; and in support various decisions were also relied upon. However, the Assessing Officer held that rate of depreciation on intangible assets is to be allowed @25% and not @ 60%. Accordingly excess depreciation of Rs. 2,63,00,242/- was disallowed and added back. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that firstly, Assessing Officer has passed the order without disposing of the objection raised, challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record after the completion of the assessment and hence there cannot be any reason to believe for reopening the case; and secondly, Assessing Officer has not disposed of the objection as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive shafts (India) Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). On the issue of rate of depreciation @ 60% or @ 25% he held that there is Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision, wherein it has been held that for computer peripherals like software depreciation should be allowed @ 60%. Similarly, for allowance u/s. 32(1)(2a) he made a following observation:- "6.5 Regarding the Ground No.4, I find that the only reason for reopening the assessment was self-revealation to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant was eligible to claim additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). These details were also furnished before the Ld. AO during the course of impugned proceedings, however, as the assessment order itself is too brief and non-speaking these contentions have not been discussed in the impugned order and hence not rebutted by the AO. In view of this, on merit also, none of these grounds are held to be sustainable." 6. After considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that there is no legal or factual infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that; Firstly, in this case original assessment was passed u/s.143(3), wherein not only the assessee's claim for depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
