Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shri Ram Swarup Memorial Trust, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal30 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal, deciding that the Revenue's appeal fails, holds that where the assessee did not claim depreciation in its original return and the Assessing Officer did not discuss the claim, the first appellate authority may admit the claim as an additional ground and allow it, since depreciation is a statutory claim, the Revenue has not challenged the admission of that ground, and the appellate authority follows the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli on that point. The Tribunal further holds that an appellate authority which allows a claim following the order of the preceding assessment year, where the same issue was decided in the assessee's favour on the same reasoning, has correctly applied that earlier decision, and that the Revenue's appeal against such an order, unaccompanied by any different reason, cannot succeed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALCHANDIGARH BENCH 'A' CHANDIGARHBEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No. 191/CHD/2015Assessment Year: 2009-10The DCI T, Vs Shri Ram SwarupCircle 2 (Exemption), Memorial Trust,Chandigarh. 20, Industrial Area,Ambala Cantt.PAN: AACTS3665D(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by : Shri S.K.MittalRespondent by : NoneDate of Hearing : 29.04.2015Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2015

O R D E R

PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM

This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of ld.

CIT(Appeals), Panchkula dated 31.12.2014 for assessment year

2009-10 challenging the order of ld. CI T(Appeals) in allowing

depreciation which was not claimed in the original return of

income.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the original return,

the assessee did not claim the depreciation as application of

income but at the assessment stage, depreciation was claimed in

view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court in the case of CI T Vs Market Committee, Pipli 45 DTR 381

(P&H). The Assessing Officer did not discuss this issue in the 2

assessment order. The details of the depreciation were,

however, available on record. Therefore, additional ground was

raised before ld. CIT(Appeals) on which report from the

Assessing Officer was also called for in which Assessing Officer

stated that in the original return, no claim of depreciation has

been made and even no revised return has been filed.

3. The ld. CIT(Appeals), considering the request of additional

ground of appeal, admitted the same for the purpose of decision

and also noted that depreciation is a statutory claim which has

been allowed to the assessee in earlier year also and his

predecessor in assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated

02.12.2010 following the above decision of the Hon'ble Punjab &

Haryana High Court, allowed the claim of assessee. The ld.

CIT(Appeals), therefore, following the order of preceding

assessment year 2008-09, directed the Assessing Officer to allow

claim of depreciation.

4. We have heard ld. DR, However, none is present on behalf

of the assessee despite notifying the date of hearing.

Considering the above facts, we do not find any merit in the

appeal of the revenue. The revenue has not challenged the

order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in admitting additional ground of

appeal claiming the depreciation. The ld. CIT(Appeals),

therefore, correctly following the order of the preceding

assessment year 2008-09, allowed the claim of depreciation. No

different reason has been assigned and that ld. CIT(Appeals)

followed the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court in the case of Market Committee, Pipli (supra) for the 3

purpose of allowing the claim of depreciation.

5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the

departmental appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

6. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30 t h April,2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 30 t h April,2015. 'Poonam' Copy to:

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CI T(A), The CI T,DR

Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free