2015 (8) TMI 613

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Y. Ratnakar, Advocate, for the respondent JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy J.- The respondent is a hatchery and is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). For the assessment year 1992-93, it claimed 100 per cent. depreciation on cages purchased by it. In the order of assessment, dated April 19, 1993, the assessing authority allowed the depreciation by taking into ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Officer was satisfied with the claim of the respondent for depreciation on the cages, to carry birds that are produced in the hatchery. The Commissioner, however, reopened the matter by issuing a notice under section 263 of the Act. According to him, the situation is covered by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Pathange Poultry Farm v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 668 (Karn). The purport of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....principle is to the effect that where two views of a particular aspect are possible, for an Income-tax Officer, and he has chosen one, the Commissioner cannot reopen the matter on the ground that another view is possible. The second ground where the power can be exercised is that the order passed by the Assessing Authority is patently illegal. The Tribunal found that none of the grounds exist in t....