2017 (2) TMI 1182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XI exceeded in their jurisdiction in spite of clear directions given to them by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the order dated 03- 07-2009 passed in 1TA No.1012/AHD/2009 for A.Y. 2004-05. 3) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XI erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the appellant has made payment of Rs. 8,21,154/- to Sterling City Development Co. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XI failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant in his letter dated 28-08-2006 submitted in original assessment proceedings wherein he has stated that he has to pay to SCDC Rs. 8,84,866.84 on account of plot and construction. The said Sterling Ci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ission made by the assessee and balance sheet, copy of balance sheet filed for A.Y.1997-98 to 2000-01 it is noticed that assessee has incurred various expenses towards development of SC DC plant as Sterling City Development Corporation is shown as creditor in the liability side of balance sheet. But here it is pertinent to note that since the property in question is depreciable asset as claimed by the assessee and duly accepted by the department, differential amount of sale consideration (sale consideration - WDV of asset) will be liable to tax as short term capital gain and not as long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee. On verification of the case records and submission filed by the assessee from time to time it is gathered th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his assets and also confirmed that he has charged depreciation on the property sold and due to the depreciation from 1996 to 2002, it is showing the present balance of Rs. 1,46,922/-. The; AO has given finding that the assessee has also pointed out during the course of assessment that the said depreciation was duly allowed by the Department. The CIT(A), on the other hand, referring to the documents filed by the assessee, gave a finding that the assessee has not claimed depreciation in the income-tax return although he has shown claimed depreciation only for AYs 1999-2000 in his books of account. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair-pay to both the parties, restore this issue to the file of the AO with the direction that the AO....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 15,30,100/-. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. Not satisfied, the assessee is in further appeal before me. 6. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 7. As evident from the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the first round of proceedings, the Assessing Officer had accepted the expenses shown by the assessee and there were no disputes in this regard. The short point on which the matter was sent to the file of the Assessing Officer was with respect to verification about depreciation and whether sale in question is to give rise to taxability under sec....