TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingareddy, Managing Director of the assessee company. The contents of the petition read as under: "I, Venkata Subash Lingareddy, Managing Director of M/s. Ocimum Bio Solutions India imited hereby state that, I am acquaint with the facts of the case in respect of appeal which has been filed with the ITAT in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15, and I state that: The order u/s. 263 of the Act in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15 has been passed on 20.03.2019 setting aside the original assessment and directing the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment and the same was served on 01.04.2019. And the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 31.05.2019. However, the order was served on staff member who recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... electronically on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Nil and current year loss at Rs. 16,13,26,268/-. The book loss was declared u/s.115JB at Rs. 6,49,83,879/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act accepting return of income filed by the assessee. 7. Thereafter, Ld. Pr. CIT on verification of the details of depreciation statement annexed to the balance sheet filed alongwith the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15, noticed that the assessee has claimed an amount of Rs. 11,60,61,439/- towards depreciation on Intangibles. He further observed that in the assessment made u/s.143(3) for the assessment year 2015-16, the depreciation on intangible asset of Rs. 8,15,12,877/- was disallowed on the ground that the int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gible asset after giving an opportunity to the assessee. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant materials placed on the record of the Tribunal, including a paper book spread over 103 pages and another case laws paper book containing 201 pages. 9. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld Pr. CIT is not justified in assuming the assessment order is erroneous both on facts and in law. He submitted that ld. Pr. CIT ought not to have held that the fact that the AO has erred in allowing the amount of Rs. 11,60,61,439/- towards depreciation claimed by the assessee on the intangible assets. He submitted that the Pr. CIT ought to have fairly accepted that the AO has correctly accepted the fact that the asset....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT DR pointed out that the assessee could not furnish corroborative evidence in support of its claim that the assessee is owned wholly or partially by it and it was put to use for the purposes of its own business. Ld CIT DR submitted that the AO has orally asked queries regarding claim of depreciation by the assessee, which was replied by the assessee vide reply dated 26.12.2016 in a short manner without any supporting documents. Therefore, it s clear case of insufficient and inadequate enquiry, which also falls in the ambit of no enquiry, therefore, ld. Pr. CIT was right in exercising revisionary powers u/s.263 of the Act available to him. 11. Placing rejoinder to above, ld A.R. submitted that the AO has made enquiry during assessment pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lan with the District Court of Delaware ("The Court"). The management has identified the intangible asset in Ocimum Bio Solutions Inc., for an amount of Rs. 50,28,55,503/- and recognized as intangible asset during the financial year 2012-13 and claimed depreciation for the A.Y. 2014-15." 14. From the careful reading of the assessment order, we clearly observe that there is no deliberation by the AO on this issue while passing the assessment order. Undisputedly, as per reply filed by the assessee before Ld. Pr. CIT vide dated 3.1.2019 in para 6.2(iii) has also noted by Pr. CIT in para 5.2 of the impugned order and reply vide dated 26.12.2016 (supra) submitted by the assessee before the AO during assessment proceedings, it is clear that this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iry, examination or verification of allowability of claim of depreciation of Intangible Asset. Therefore, it is a clear case of no enquiry and thus, when the AO has not made any opinion by way of proper and sufficient enquiry then the allegation of change of opinion cannot be held as sustainable. 17. Ld A.R. has also relied on various orders of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT including the orders of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of SPR Publications Pvt Ltd., in ITA No.351/Hyd/2015 and ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Bodal Chemicals Ltd., in ITA No.1439/Ahd/2011 to allege that the opening WDV cannot be disturbed but these facts may be relevant for the purpose of merits of the claim of the assessee but in the instant case, as we have already in earli....