TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ature, needs no adjudication. 4. The ground no.2.1 is as under: "2.1 The proceedings initiated u/s.153A(b) by AO for A.Y.2002-03 are wholly illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction." 5. This ground of the appeal is not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee, and is accordingly dismissed. 6. The ground no.3.1 and 3.2 of the assessee's appeal are as under: "3.1 The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding that the vehicle were not used for running them on hire and hence depreciation @ 40% was not admissible. 3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld that the vehicles were not used for running them on hire so that depreciation @ 40% was not admissible" 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation at 40% on its trucks and JCBs, as it was being used for running them on hire also during the dull period of business of road construction of the assessee. He referred to the detailed account of the "carting income" of the assessee, as appearing in its ledger account, wherein the assessee has charged carting income on various trips m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was entitled to higher depreciation at the rate of 40%, and accordingly, the grounds of the appeal no.3.1 and 3.2 of the assessee are allowed. IT(SS)A No.179/Ahd/2009 - Asstt.Year 2004-2005 (Assessee's Appeal) 10. The ground no.1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal of the assessee are as under: "1.1 The order passed by CIT(A) on 25.9.2009 for A.Y.2004-05 partly confirming the disallowance of bad debts and addition of Rs. 19,42,771/- in respect of seized diary as made by the AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the impugned disallowances/additions without considering fully and properly the evidence produced as well as explanation offered." 11. These grounds of the appeal being general in nature, needs no adjudication. 12. The grounds no.2.1 and 2.2 read as under: "2.1 The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding following additions/disallowances. (a) Bad debts disallowance Rs. 13,36,532/- (b) Undisclosed income (seized Diary Annx - A/1-6) Rs. 19,42,771/- 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have made above said disallowan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hold that the addition should be sustained to the extent of Rs. 14,35,666/- as against Rs. 19,42,771/- sustained by the learned CIT(A), and the ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to this extent. IT(SS)A No.180/Ahd/2009 - Asstt.Year 2005-2006 (Assessee's Appeal) 16. The ground no.1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal of the assessee are as under: "1.1 The order passed by CIT(A) on 25.9.2009 for A.Y.2005-06 partly confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 2,14,938/- and addition of Rs. 12,43,447/- in respect of seized diary as made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the impugned disallowances without considering fully and properly the evidence produced as well as explanation offered." 17. These grounds of the appeal being general in nature, needs no adjudication. 18. The grounds no.2.1 and 2.2 read as under: "2.1 The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding following additions/disallowances. (a) Depreciation Rs. 2,14,938/- (b) Undisclosed income (seized Diary Annx - A/1-6) Rs. 12,43,447/- 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding following additions/disallowances. (a) Excess claim of Ujjain division Rs. 2,24,982/- (b) Excess depreciation on vehicles Rs. 1,35,294/- (b) Unrecorded receipt (seized Diary Annx - A1/-6) Rs. 8,51,182/- 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have made above said disallowance/additions. 24. These grounds of the appeal of the assessee consists of three parts. First part is regarding excess claim of Ujjain division of Rs. 2,24,982/-. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this is the business loss of the assessee, and therefore, allowable. The learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We have considered rival submissions. We find that the assessee has claimed a loss of Rs. 13.23 lakhs in its Ujjain division with regard to the work done for road construction, whereas the exact amount of loss determined by the PWD was for Rs. 10,98,087/-. The difference was claimed by the assessee as business loss. In our view, the actual loss being Rs. 10,98,087/-, the balance loss of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The first is regarding excess claim of depreciation on vehicles of Rs. 58,033/- . Both parties submitted before us that the issue is identical with the issue in the appeal of the assessee for the earlier assessment year 2003-2004. We have considered rival submissions. In view of our decision in the foregoing paras of this order in IT(SS)A.No.178/Ahd/2009 for A.Y.2003-2004, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee, and the depreciation on vehicle of Rs. 58,033/- is allowed. The other issue is regarding the claim of the assessee with regard to the excess loss of Rs. 1,25,442/-. We have heard both the parties. We find that the issue is identical with the ground of the appeal of the assessee in the earlier assessment year 2006- 2007. For the reasons recorded while disposing of the appeal of the assessee in the foregoing paras of this order for A.Y.2006- 2007 in IT(SS)A.No.181/Ahd/2009, we find that the loss on account of acceptance of lesser claim by the PWD authorities is not allowable as business loss of the assessee, and accordingly, the loss of Rs. 1,25,442/- is not allowed. IT(SS)A.No.73, 74 and 75/Ahd/2010 for A.Y.2004-2005, 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007 (Revenue's appeals)....