TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ataramana appearing for the petitioner urged before the Court that the said demand upon a rectification order, stands reduced, however, the rectification order passed by the same authority was not placed on record. 3. The issue raised in this second round of litigation is that the earlier remand to the Assessing Authority has been upheld by this Court while deciding the appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No.1294/2006 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & another vs. M/s.Krone Communications Ltd., (now taken over by the petitioner M/s.ADC India Communications Ltd.,) and the Division Bench of this Court while upholding the order of the ITAT remanding the matter back to the Assessing Authority has observed as under:- "5. Heard, L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnace in his estimation, was only to the extent of Rs. 2.53 lakhs in the year 1996 as stated in paragraph-13(c) of the impugned Assessment order. 6. Though, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said valuation certificate dealt with only one biogas plant and not with the cost of Flameless Furnace, after the remand of case by the learned ITAT as well as this Court, the respondent- Assessing Authority has now again passed the impugned assessment order relying upon the same valuation of these plants and equipments viz., Biogas plants and Flameless Furnace to the extent of Rs. 2.53 lakhs and reducing the claim of depreciation accordingly, has computed the net tax payable by the assessee company along with the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e over by the higher appellate forums, upheld even by this Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the Revenue as aforesaid. 9. The burden of proving the correct cost, market value/price of the plant and machineries purchased by the assessee, on which the claim of 100% depreciation was allowable under the relevant Rules was certainly on the assessee. The contra evidence adduced was by the Revenue in the present case in the form of the Certificate issued by M/s.Techno Economic Consultants, who valued these plants at only Rs. 2.53 lakhs in the year 1996. The burden of rebuttal of that evidence adduced by the Revenue also was on the assessee. Irrespective of the rounds of litigation, the assessee perhaps cannot claim any immunity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T.Act, 1961, would be frustrated, if this Court were to undertake this exercise in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the valuation of the plant and machineries purchased by the assessee-company and its right to claim depreciation thereon, the petitioner-company is relegated back before the first appellate authority namely, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It goes without saying that if the assessee-company leads appropriate evidence to support its claim even before the first appellate authority, who undoubtedly has the co-extensive powers as are available to the Assessing Authority under the Act, the said first appellate authority is expected not to shirk its responsibility, but decide th....