Case Law Details
Gilbarco Veeder Root India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Conclusion: Since assessee had duly filed revised return within the mandate of section 139(5), therefore, the same could not be treated as non est and claim of depreciation in revised return could not be denied on the ground that it was not claimed in original return and also, assessee was not required to seek condonation of delay in terms of section 119(2)(b).
Held: Assessee claimed depreciation on goodwill in revised return filed under section 139(5). AO disallowed the same holding that enhanced claim in revised return could not be allowed, as same was in violation of section 80 and section 139(1). CIT(A) confirmed this on the ground that no condonation has been sought under section 119(2). It was held assessee has duly filed the return u/s. 139(1) within the due date. Thereafter, assessee claimed the depreciation on goodwill in the revised return u/s. 139(5) which was filed on time. This claim of deprecation in the revised return cannot be denied solely on the ground that it was not claimed in the original return. The reference of CIT(A) to section 119(2)(b) could have relevance where no return was filed in due time. Hence, the return had been filed beyond the time and in absence of any condonation in term of section 119(2)(b), assessee’s claim could not be allowed was liable to be rescinded.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai dated 16.12.2016 (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 16.12.2016 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
