1976 (9) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee did not get a challan for payment of fees in connection with this appeal, though such a request was made to the ITO on 53rd day of the communication of the order appealed against. After hearing the parties, the delay is condoned and the appeal is entertained. 2. The first ground raised in this appeal filed by the assessee is regarding calculation of profit chargeable to tax under s. 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 41(2). 3. The ITO however, computed the profit under s. 41(2) at Rs. 9,083 and included it in the total income determined at Rs. 34,250 in this year. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the AAC. The AAC held that no depreciation having been actually allowed for the asst. yr. 1969-70, nothing was to be deducted against the cost of Rs. 60,445. He made a calculation and held that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... et income from the truck for the asst. yr. 1970-71 was estimated at Rs. 7,500 and for the asst. yr. 1971-72 at Rs. 4,000. In both the assessments, it is written that the aforesaid income was estimated after set-off of depreciation. It is because of the use of these words that the learned AAC has held that depreciation was actually allowed for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72, though in the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an "notionally allowed" or merely allowable on a notional basis. The Allahabad High Court in (1971) 81 ITR 270 (All) has held that the written down value under s. 43(6)(b) means the actual cost of the assets less depreciation actually allowed and not a notional allowance that might be permissible under this section. In the assessment orders for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72, the depreciation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... addition of Rs. 5,382 is, therefore, deleted. 5. The second ground relates to the charging of interest under s. 139 and s. 271. The learned counsel for the assessee did not address any argument on this ground. Even otherwise, the order of the AAC holding that there is no right of appeal against the charging of interest under s. 139 and s. 217 is correct. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X