2015 (11) TMI 1432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submitted that in respect of the machinery purchased by the assessee from Germany, the Administrative Commissioner found that it was put to use less than 180 days, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for full depreciation. According to the ld. Counsel, the machinery was actually installed and put to use on 25.9.2010. The Customs Department inspected the machinery on 4.10.2010 in respect of the claim made by the assessee for refund to the extent of Rs. 21,12,461/- from the customs duty paid. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for full depreciation since the machinery was actually put to use for more than 180 days. 3. The next ground of revision by the CIT is with regard to variation in the turnover and closing stock. 4. The ld. Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the ld. Counsel submitted that the show cause notice was issued by the ITO and not by the CIT himself. The CIT observed that the assessee paid CENVAT on 4.10.2010. In fact, the assessee has not paid any CENVAT on 4.10.2010 or on any other date. Since the basic details are not available in the show cause notice, according to the ld. Counsel, the show cause notice issued by the CIT is defective. Therefore, the consequential order passed by the CIT cannot stand in the eye of law. 7. On the contrary, Shri Arun C. Bharat, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT found that the machinery purchased by the assessee from Germany was put to use less than 180 days, therefore, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation. Accordingl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nity of being heard. Sec. 263 does not require the CIT to issue any show cause notice. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that even if there was any defect in the show cause notice that will not affect the consequential order passed by the CIT. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824. 9. Now coming to the claim of depreciation in respect of machinery purchased from Germany, from the material available on record, it appears that the machinery was installed and put to use on 25.9.2010. The Customs Authorities inspected the usage and running of the machinery on 4.10.2010. When the Customs authorities inspected the machinery on 4.10.2010, it is obvious that....