TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) has erred in allowing the assessee depreciation of Rs. 98,88,500/- on computers relying purely on the revised certificate submitted by the assessee which in itself does not certify that the computers have been used from 1.4.2002, i.e. for more than 180 days. Further, no remand report was ever called from the Assessing Officer for cross verification of fresh evidence filed before the CIT(A). 2. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and / or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal." 3. In this case AO noted that during the assessment year the assessee has claimed the depreciation of Rs. 197.77 lacs as per I.T. Act in the computation of income on computers. However, the allowable depreciation is Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th a CA certificate in Form 3CEA indicating the date of slump sale as April 1, 2002 and a certificate from the auditor of the company to the effect that these assets were put to use for more than 180 days during the FY 2002-03. Based on above, it is submitted that these computers have been put to use for more than 180 days during the FY 2002-03 and accordingly, on merits of the case, the assessee has not been allowed excess depreciation. Therefore, there is no income which has escaped assessment. 4. However, the AO was not satisfied with the above reply. He referred to the revised certificate dated 25.1.2008 of the Auditor filed by the assessee which read as under:- "With reference to our Report (in Form No. 3CB) dated November 26, 2003 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate by the auditors was not satisfactory. He held that assessee has not been able to file any conclusive or independent evidence which could prove that assets have been put to use have more than 180 days, beyond the fact of slump sale was executed on 1.4.2002. Accordingly, AO held that depreciation is restricted to 98.88 lacs only as against the claim of depreciation 199.97 lacs, as per I.T. Act. 5. Upon assessee's appeal Ld. CIT(A) considered the issue and held as under:- "I have gone through the submission of the appellant and also certificates of CA and auditor filed by the appellant. It is to be noted that the AO verified the date of put to use of assets from Tax Audit Report which is certified by the auditor (in which, however, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the Tax Audit Report by referring to the date of put to use for the computers worth Rs. 329.92 lacs, AO inferred that they were put to use for less than 180 days as certified by the auditors of the company. When enquiry was made in this regard, assessee replied that all assets acquired under slump sale were put to use with effect from April 1, 2002. In the Tax Audit Report, however, by way of typographical error, the date of capitalization date (the date on which entry was made in ERP System of accounting) and date of put to use were interchanged for the above mentioned assets and therefore, the date reflected in put to use was shown as December 25, 2002 as against April 1, 2002. In this regard, revised certificate from the auditor dated ....