Case Law Details
Safikahmed Mehamudali Ansari Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The case of Safikahmed Mehamudali Ansari vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, regarding an assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The Assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The key issue raised by the Assessee was the disallowance of a depreciation claim amounting to Rs. 20,63,673/-, which was incorrectly rejected by the assessing officer despite being allowed in previous and subsequent years. The Assessee contended that this disallowance was made due to a clerical mistake.
During the hearing, the Assessee’s counsel argued that the depreciation should have been allowed since it had been accepted in both the preceding and succeeding years. In light of this, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to review the claim of depreciation, taking into account the consistent treatment of the claim in the prior and subsequent years, and pass a fresh order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter to be re-examined by the assessing officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)” for short), dated 30.07.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The assessment order passed u/s 154 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.
2. The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 20,63,673/- by disallowing the depreciation claim. The same deserves to be deleted.”
3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the claim of depreciation for which the assessee is eligible has been allowed in the preceding year as well as in the succeeding year. It was submitted that the depreciation was not allowed owing to mistake in the claim of depreciation. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of depreciation considering the fact of allowing the same in the earlier and succeeding years, and to pass an order under Section 154 in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act.
4. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.11.2024
Author Bio
