TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act on the ground that the assessing officer had allowed expenditure claimed under the head "building, renovation written off" amounting to Rs.26,84,404/- as against Rs.2,65,404/- being 10 per cent of the amount written off. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee debited an amount of Rs.26,52,404/- to profit and loss account under the head "building renovation account written off". During the course of assessment proceedings it was submitted that these expenses were incurred on two rented premises located at Raja Garden and Shivaji Marg. These premises were later vacated and the expenditure on unused building was debited to profit and loss account. Since the assessee had not submitted the justification as to how ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecided in appeal, no action can be taken under section 263 in view of provisions of section 263(1)(c) of the Act as exclusion under section 263(1)(c) of the Act was applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Commissioner, however, was of the view that he had power to set aside the assessment order and send the matter for fresh assessment, if he was satisfied that further enquiries were necessary and the order of the assessing officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. She placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Swarup Veg. Products 187 ITR 412 (All). She also placed reliance on other decisions. As regards the arguments of the assessee that the ld. CIT (A) has deleted 1/10th of the expens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the leased period and thus was justified in claiming expenditure over the spread out period of lease. The assessee company had not sold or salvaged the fittings, but however, used whatever equipment/attachment penal or ducting of Raja Garden at Shivaji Marg and then Shivaji Marg to Green Park. Therefore, the assessing officer had only made a presumption of disallowance of 10 per cent of Rs.26,53,404/-. The entire amount of Rs.26,53,404/- was entirely not to be disallowed. It was further submitted that the adhoc disallowance of expense @10% has been deleted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the Revenue has not preferred further appeal on the issue and therefore, the matter has become final. Since the assessment order has merged in the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be unsustainable in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakhineshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dheerajlal Girdharilal 26 ITR 736 (SC). From the above facts it is clear that the ld. CIT (A) has only discussed the ad hoc disallowance, but the fact remains that the entire issue of claim of Rs.26,53,404/- was before him. It is a settled law that the ld. CIT (A) had concurrent powers with that of the assessing officer. If the entire amount was to be disallowed, he could have enhanced the assessment by issue of show cause notice, but the same was not done. Therefore, the issue relating to claim of Rs.26,53,404/- was before the ld.....