TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law and on facts in admitting the assessee's additional evidence regarding the purchase of invoice (s) of the fixed asset in the nature of generator during the lower appellate proceedings and that too, in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. He thus seeks to restore this depreciation issue back to the Assessing Officer on the alleged ground of violation of principles of natural justice. We notice that the CIT(A) findings qua this depreciation issue reads as under: "5.2 Before me, the appellant submitted that while retyping and printing the depreciation for assets classified under KILN-III on which depreciation was claimed @15% got omitted and consequently the totals got altered. The appellant submitted that the asset and op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for and in violation of principles of nature justice. The appellant further submitted that in regard to the audit report was prepared on 01.09.2011 after completing the audit. The appellant submitted that it had deposited TDS on 19.09.2011. The audit report was not released until the TDS payments were made by the appellant and were verified with the balance TDS payable. The income tax return was filed on 30.09.2011. The appellant submitted that Chartered Accountant of the appellant by oversight retained the original date as 01.09.2011 although the TDS payments were made on 19.09.2011. In fact, the date on the report should have been changed to 19.09.2011 viz., the date on which this was actually released after verification of deposit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, the assessments were completed u/s. 143(3) and the books of the company were accepted. 5.3 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The contention of the appellant that in regard to depreciation and audit report, there has been a mistake in typing. Hence the discrepancy has arisen. Had the issues been verified from the accounts, the mistake could have been apparently seen. The contention has been verified and found to be correct. The appellant submitted statement of Depreciation as per Income Tax Act which was forming part of Form 3CD, which shows the depreciation of Rs. 5,03,01,058/- and additional depreciation of Rs. 10,70,000/-, totalling to Rs. 5,13,71,058/- The appellant submitted bill of Generator in suppo....