TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Rs. 8,38,238/- for leave encashment u/s 43B of the Act in computation of income by observing that the assessee has simply asked for adopting the correct figures which in fact was only to rectify a mistake apparent on record and it did not amount to lodging of a fresh claim. iii. The appellant craves to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 607(Asr)/2013 are as under: i. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Bathinda has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,29,28,037/- made by the Assessing Officer, on account of addition depreciation claimed by assessee U/s 32(1)(iia) on Plant & Machinery by a fresh claim before the Assessing Officer. ii. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Bathinda, has failed to appreciate that the additional depreciation was a statutory allowance which had to be allowed, even when it had not been claim as per explanation 5 to Sec 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The facts relating to the issue in dispute are that the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of yarn. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the Assessing Officer on account of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee U/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on plant and machinery. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with use, especially the orders passed by the Revenue Authority as well as the small paper book filed by learned counsel for the assessee containing pages from 1 to 29, in which he has attached Statement of Taxable Income of the assessee and Depreciation Chart for Assessment Year 2009-10; Calculation of excess disallowance u/s 43B of Gratuity & Leave Encashment; Copy of Gratuity Payable account for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.03.2010; Copy of Leave Encashment Expenses payment for the period of 1.4.2008 to 31.03.2010; Details of Electric Unit Consumed per Kg. of Production; Application for grant of Additional Depreciation before the Assessing Officer; and Copy of Board Circular No. 14(XL-35) Dated 11.04.1955. As a matter of fact, the assessee is limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of yarn and filed its return of income for the assessment year in dispute, declaring loss of Rs. 11,98,50,983/-. After examining the documentary evidence filed by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 8,38,283/- for leave encashment u/s 43B of the Act in computation of income, the Assessing Officer has held that the claim of the assessee is not admissible as it tantamounts to revision of return which could be made by 31.03.2011 only. Learned First Appellate Authority, on this very issue, has held that there were mistakes in the calculations of gratuity and earned leave which the Assessing Officer should have done voluntarily. He further held that in the computation sheet of income, the assessee had added back 'gratuity' and 'leave encashment' at Rs. 22,85,832/- and Rs. 21,22,298/- respectively on account of un-paid liability in view of the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. He again held that the assessee had simply asked for adopting the correct figures which in fact was only a prayer to rectify a mistake apparent on record and it did not amount to lodging of a fresh claim and he deleted the addition in dispute, as pointed out in the revenue appeal. We are of the view that the findings given by the learned First Appellate Authority is very much as per law, therefore we are fully agree with the same by upholding the impugned order on this very issue and dismiss the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bject to the conditions enumerated in section 32 of the Act. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on certain judgments and the same have also been carefully perused and considered. In the case of ITO, Ward II-(2) Vs. Sri Balaji Sago and Starch Products reported at (2012) (4) TMI 147 - I.T.A.T. Chennai, the rate of depreciation was wrongly mentioned and the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. held the mistake was apparent from record and as no fresh claim was made, there was no need to file the revised return. However, in the case under consideration, a fresh claim has been lodged and thus the facts of the case relied upon by the assessee do not help the appellant. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Ramco International reported at (2011) 332 ITR 306 (P&H), relevant para No. 4 and 5 read as under:- "4. We are unable to accept the submissions. The Tribunal has considered this issue and found that as per Form No. 10CCB filed during the assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was admissible. The finding of the Tribunal is as under:- 19. In view of the above, we find no error in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It has correctly been held by the first ap....