TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the authorities below in so far as these are against the appellant are opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 59,72,710/- as against the returned income of Rs. 9,32,380/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The authorities below erred in disallowing the depreciation on shuttering and centering sheets of Rs. 50,40,355/-under the facts and circumstances of the case 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that each of the shuttering and centering sheet in itself is an independent unit and it is eligible for 100 per cent deprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds urged above. 12. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justiceand equity." 3. The assessee has also raised some additional grounds of appeal which are as under. "1. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the centering sheets are purely temporary structures eligible for depreciation at a rate of 100% as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and consequently the addition of Rs. 50,40,335/- is liable to be deleted under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The authorities below are not justified in treating the centering sheets being temporary structures as 'plant &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently, the expenses incurred on the same should have been allowed as deduction and AO was not justified in treating the same as plant & machinery and allowing depreciation @ 15% as against assessee's claim for 100% depreciation. 5. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Pathange Poultry Farm Vs. CIT as reported in [1994] 210 ITR 668. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar as reported in [2015] 376 ITR 226. Reliance was also placed on a Tribunal order rendered in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT as reported in [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is hereby deleted." 7. As per above Para reproduced from the Tribunal order, it is seen that it was held by Tribunal in this case that the AO cannot blow not and cold in the same breath by admitting the claim of the assessee in one assessment year and denying the same in the subsequent assessment year. In the present case also, we find that on page no. 5 of the synopsis submitted by ld. AR of assessee before the Tribunal, it is stated that the depreciation was allowed in the earlier assessment year under similar facts. But this fact is not coming out from the orders of authorities below. In fact, in Para 4.1 of the order of CIT(A), it is noted by him that assessee has claimed 100% deprecia....