TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of hearing the arguments were confined to ground no. 2 which reads as under: - 2. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed in appellant's own appeal for the A.Y. 1994-95 ITA No. 1232/Del/2006; on 20.02.2009." 2. The Revenue in its appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-Faridabad dated 16/02/2012 passed on the rectification petition filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contends that the CIT(A) has reviewed its order. The record shows that the assessee in his petition filed u/s 154 of the Act pleaded that while deciding the appeal the issue pertaining to assessee's claim of deduction on account of Scientif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of section 35 of the Act and the renewal of recognition to in house research and development unit of the assessee at Faridabad, Haryana after 31/03/1994 granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, Depart of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi. Whereas the AO allowed revenue expenditure, capital expenditure was not allowed by him. The said action was challenged in appeal before the CIT(A) who however failed to adjudicate upon the issue resulting in the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee also moved a rectification u/s 154 before the CIT(A) which was allowed. Resulting in the appeal of the Revenue it is seen that the CIT(A) in his impugned order u/s 154 decided the issue in the following m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. In my appellate order dated 12.01.2011 in appeal No. 195/2002-03 (74/2010-11), the Ground No. 2 of appeal has been decided vide para 6.1 of the appellate order rejecting the ground of appeal after considering the Remand Report dated 11.08.2006 u/s 35D of the Act. In assessment year 1994-95, Hon'ble ITAT allowed relief only on the ground that when the AO chooses not to refer the matter to the prescribed authority, the deletion made by ld.CIT(A) was right. The appellant has filed an application u/s 154 against the appellate order dated 12.01.2011, which is pending adjudication. You are directed to clarify only two points: (i) Whether a reference as stated in Remand Report dated 11.08.2006 has been made; (ii) If so, a copy thereof. The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... records. Consequently, the AO is directed to allow deduction of Rs. 27,55,408/- u/s 35 of the Act on account of expenditure on scientific research. It may be reiterated that in the assessment order, the AO has held part of the expenditure on scientific research as capital in nature but did not allow any depreciation. The depreciation on such capital expenditure was allowed vide order u/s 154 dated 14.06.1996 and subsequently modified vide order u/s 154 dated 19.07.1996. consequent to the decision allowing deduction for expenditure on scientific research, the AO is directed to withdraw the depreciation granted in the year under appeal as well as in subsequent years as per the provisions of law." 7. It is seen that not only the view taken i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al question of law, arises from the impugned order." (emphasis provided by the Bench) 7.1 In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that in the absence of any specific argument assailing the facts or position of law we find no good reason to come to a contrary finding. On a consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we hold that rectification order in the facts as they stand does not amount to a review as admittedly the ground was not decided by the CIT(A) by mistake while passing the order dated 12.1.2011. We have taken ourselves through the order of the Tribunal followed by the CIT(A), wherein the expenditure has been denied for no fault to the assessee and merely because the AO ch....