TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the CIT(A) has erred in cancelling the order of the AO, rejecting the application under s. 154 of the Act of the assessee for rectification without appreciating the material fact that 100 per cent depreciation is admissible only on plant and machinery whose cost does not exceed Rs. 5,000. 2. Sri K. Ramesh, the learned Departmental Representative, submits that the CIT(A) while allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was very much entitled for 100 per cent depreciation in respect of plant and machinery whose value was less than Rs. 5,000. His further submission is that even if there was no proof in support of the claim of depreciation accompanying the return, the proper course of action on the part of the AO was to invoke the provisions of s 143(2) of the Act instead of making assessment under s. 143(1)(a) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ental Representative that the CIT(A) has not given reason while coming to the conclusion that action of the AO while rejecting the application under s. 154 of the Act of the assessee was not tenable under the law. We are of the definite view that while doing so the CIT(A) should have given reason to justify his order. But after considering the submissions of the learned authorised representative, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
