2021 (10) TMI 570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ties. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring Nil income. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and consequently assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs. 12,69,660/-. Aggrieved by order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.09.2018 in Appeal No.10387/17-18 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: "1. That Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order on facts and circumstances of the case to make an addition of Rs. 84,010/- by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). He therefore submitted that the additional ground of appeal be admitted and appropriate order be passed in the interest of rendering substantial justice. On the issue of admissibility of additional ground, the Learned DR strongly objected to the plea for admission of additional ground. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and considering the submissions made by the Learned AR and following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the additional ground raised in the present appeal needs to be admitted. I therefore admit the additional ground. 7. With respect to the addi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y it and the claim of depreciation was of Rs. 1,68,021/-. He submitted that the residential property was used for the purpose of business of the assessee and was used to hold meeting and business discussions. AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee for the reason that the property was a residential property, it had not put on rent, no proof was provided by the assessee to substantiate its claim of having been used for the purpose of business and no employee expenses/depreciation on furniture was claimed by the assessee. AO therefore restricted the claim of the depreciation @ 5% and disallowed the balance 5% and the addition of Rs. 84,010/- was made by AO. When the matter was carried before the CIT(A), CIT(A) upheld the order of....