2014 (1) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in brief. The assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31-12-2007. the assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A) and the first appellate authority adjudicated the appeal on 26-03-2008, the effect of which was given by the Assessing Officer on 30-04-2009. The Administrative Commissioner examined assessment record and came to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the following issues:- i) In the computation of depreciation on building used for residential purpose, the sale value of office building was wrongly adjusted resulting in allowance of excess depreciation. ii) Depreciation at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....educted while computing the income from business. ix) According to the details of additions to P&M during the year furnished as per annexure to the Depreciation Statement, an amount of Rs. 2,00,75,230/- relates to P&M installed at the office premises, the value of which cannot be considered for additional depreciation under clause (b) of second proviso. The excess additional depreciation granted u/s. 32(i)(iia) on P&M installed at office premises requires to be withdrawn. After hearing the assessee, the Ld CIT set aside the assessment order, apparently on the above said issues and directed the assessing officer to re-do the assessment. Aggrieved by the revision order passed by Ld CIT, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 4. We f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce or without application of mind, would be an order falling in that category. The expression "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue", the Supreme Court held, it is of wide import and is not confined to a loss of tax. What is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is explained in the judgment of the Supreme Court (head note) :- "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of reve....