TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Rs. 84,49,131/- being the difference between the income returned as per original return and the income as per revised return: 2.1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) having accepted the statutory provisions under the IT Act and judicial precedence in accepting the revised return under section 139 (5) of the IT Act, ought to have accepted the revised return filed by the Appellant when it had justifiable reason for filing revised return and more particularly when it had reconciled, explained & substantiated its explanation with documentary evidences with respect to each of the line items of difference between original return and revised return. 2.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing Rs. 1,15,897/- being the sundry purchases which were written off during the year. 4.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer are not justified in treating the aforesaid expenditure as capital and allowing depreciation at the rate of 10% without even categorizing the said sundry purchases are either plant, machinery, building, furniture or fixture. The Learned lower authorities have failed to appreciate that sundry purchases are essentially the revenue items and the entire expenditure on them is liable to be written off. 4.3. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer are not justified in allowing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come was filed on 1.4.2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,30,20,000. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act after making the following additions / disallowances :- i. Disallowance against purchase of tools .......Rs. 3,50,544. ii. Disallowance relating to delay in remitting employee's contribution to PF & ESIC of Rs. 2,68,794. iii. Disallowance of contribution made towards super annuation fund of Rs. 11,89,000. iv. Disallowance made u/s.14A of Rs. 1,65,000. v. Disallowance of Rs. 1,15,897 being sundry charges. vi. Addition of Rs. 4,49,519 as prior period expenses. vii. Levy of interest u/s. 234B of Rs. 4,39,258. Refusal on the part of JCIT to accept the revised return which reflected lower i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, the original return is substituted by Revised Return consequently the assessment framed according to the Revised Return only. For this purpose he relied on the decision in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Machine Tools Corporation India Ltd. 201 ITR 101 (Kar). He also relied on the judgement of CIT Vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. 191 ITR 256 and Dharmpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 90 ITR 236 (Allahabad) and CIT Vs. UPR NN Limited 36 Taxman.com 96. The ld. AR also relied on UPRNN Ltd. Vs. ITO 24 SOT 139 where the assessee filed Revised Return on the basis of audited accounts. The depreciation cannot relied on the original return which is based on unaudited books of accounts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed Return. There is no scope of taking the difference in income declared in the original return and revised return as additional income of the assessee. We are completely in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer cannot consider the income declared in the original return based on the unaudited books of accounts over the income declared in revised return based on the audited books of accounts. We direct the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment on the basis of the Revised Return based on the audited books of accounts. This ground of appeal is allowed. 8. The ground relating to disallowance of Rs. 1,15,897 being sundry charges and additional ground is that said amount has not clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s incorrect. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for reconsideration to decide whether it is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure , if it is a capital expenditure, depreciation is to be granted at applicable rate. Both additional ground and main ground are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Next ground is regarding disallowance of Rs. 3,50,544 being 25% of charges of tools which are written off during the year. The assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 3,50,544 as being the charges of tools written off. It was submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has practice of writing off of 25% of charges of tools in each assessment year. According to the Assessing Officer, it h....