TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds of appeal along with the Appeal Memo in Form No.36. Since the grounds of appeal are argumentative and lacking clarity, the assessee filed revised grounds of appeal during the appeal hearing on 21.11.2017 and raised nine grounds in total. On the request of the assessee the under mentioned revised grounds of appeal are taken up for adjudication 1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. Since the order of the Principle CIT under section 263 in so far as depredation disallowance is concern is against binding precedents of the Jurisdictional Honorable High Court, the same is not being "in accordance with law', nothing prevented both the lower authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt and therefore not being "in accordance with law' ought not have been followed by both the lower authorities. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,49,851/- representing interest received which is connected with contract works under taken by the assessee on which income is estimated. 3. Ground No.1 and 9 of the revised grounds of appeal are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 4. Ground No. 2 to 6 are related to the direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax(CIT) in order u/s 263 relating to the addition of Rs. 35,65,818/- representing the depreciation. In this case, original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on total in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and while giving effect to the Revision Order the AO ought to have allowed the depreciation following the binding decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the appeal ought to have followed the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court and directed the AO to allow the depreciaiton from the estimated income. The AR was of the view that though the assessee did not prefer appeal against the order u/s 263 the AO/CIT(A) should give relief to the extent of depreciation. 6. On the other hand, Ld.DR argued that the Ld.CIT in the order u/s 263 directed the AO to make the addition of Rs. 35,65,818/- representing the Depreciation. While holding so, the CIT has considered the decisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case, the P.O has estimated the income at a specified percentage which ,.Was not agitated by the assessee at any stage during the assessment or later proceedings Hence, keeping In view the Intent of the judicial pronouncements made in the cases of M/s. Indwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd., MIS. KNR Constructions Ltd and the Ia er8ecrstons of the Mantle ITAT, Hyderabad in Sri P V Sitaramaswamy vs. Addl. CIT, Range-B, Hyderabad In ITA No 264/Hyd/2012 - ay 2008-09, dt. 09/01/2013, the AC should not have allowed depreciation from the income so estimated. In this case, the AO has not followed the judicial discipline i.e. the law laid down by the Hon'ble ITAT. The ratio relied on by the assessee was not before the AO and the assessee has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the grounds raised by the assessee with regard to the merits of the order of the CIT relating to the allowability of depreciation are not relevant to the present appeal of the assessee. The jurisdiction of the Ld.CIT(A) on order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 is confined to see whetehr the AO has given effect to the order correctly or not. In the instant case, AO has not committed any mistake while giving effect to the order of the Ld.CIT u/s 263. The Ld.AR did not bring any mistake in the consequential order passed by the AO while giving effect to the Ld.CIT's order. Hence, the ground Nos. 2 to 6 of assessee's appeal which are related to the merits of the revision order u/s 263 are not relevant to the present appeal and accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmed by the Ld.CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), hence, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 9. Ground Nos. 7 and 8 are related to the addition of Rs. 6,49,851/- representing interest received on which the income is estimated. In the order passed u/s 263, the Ld.CIT has directed the AO to afford reasonable opportunity and obtain the relevant particulars and decide the issue in accordance with law. The AO has estimated the income and also made the addition of Rs. 6,49,851/- separately representing the interest. The AO did not discuss in the assessment order why a separate addition of interest required to be made once the income is estimate....