AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in not allowing the claim of depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961 to assessee amounting to Rs.44,58,403/- although it is mandatory in terms of Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in not allowing the set off of carry forwarded losses of proceeding years. 4. It is therefore prayed that the additions made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Assessee craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year (AY) 2013-14 is barred by limitation by nine hundred ninety seven (997) days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay. The contents of the petition is reproduced below: "1) The assessee begs to prefer this application for condonation of delay in relation to Appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 28.10.2016. The date of service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hence ld Counsel, prays the Bench that delay may be condoned. 5. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer to condone the delay and stated that such delay should not be condoned. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We observe that because of mistake committed by the assessee`s representative, the assessee could not file appeal on time. We are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that his Authorized Representative was looking for the tax related matters, however, Authorized Representative kept the order of ld CIT(A) in his file and did not advise the assessee to file further appeal. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that because of the wrong advice of the Tax Professional or because of mistake committed by the Tax Consultant, the assessee cannot be penalized. Besides, the assessee was also seeking alternative remedy for rectification under section 154 of the Act, and this has resulted into delay. We are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before assessing officer, however, the assessing officer accepted part details only and made part addition based on surmise and conjecture, therefore ld Counsel prays the Bench that addition made by the assessing officer may be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 12. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. Before us, Ld. Counsel submits the following documents and evidences to prove his claim: (i) Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) for AY.2012-13 (vide paper book page nos. 1 to 2) (ii) Audited Financial Statements for AY.2012-13 (vide paper book page nos. 3 to 13) (iii) Assessment Order u/s/ 143(3) for AY.2011-12 (vide paper book page nos. 14 to 17) (iv) Audited Report along with Audited Financial Statements for AY.2011-12 (vide paper book page nos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the return of income, it was noticed that the assessee has debited the following expenses: (i) Labour charges Rs.24,34,035/- Total Rs.24,34,035/- 5. During the course of assessment proceedings on examination of books of account and supporting bills and vouchers, it was seen that proper vouchers were not maintained in respect of certain expenses covered under this head. As such, the Id. Authorized Representative of the assessee company was asked to explain as to why Rs.2,00,000/- should not be disallowed out of the above expenses. The Id. Authorized Representative agreed to the proposed addition. These facts are duly recorded in the proceedings sheet dated 29.01.2014, duly read and signed by the Id. Authorized Representative of the assessee company. As such Rs.2,00,000/- disallowed out of above expenses. 6. After considering the above, total income of the assessee is computed as under;- Amount (Rs.) Total Agriculture Income as per return of income 21,17,173 Add Addition as per para-4.1 2,00,000 Total Agriculture Income 19,17,173 Rounded off u/s. 288A 19,17,170 7. Total disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- made has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in the assessment year 2013-14 are same and identical, therefore we are of the view that the above cited precedent on principle of consistency are squarely applicable to the assessee under consideration. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer needs to be deleted. 15. We have also noted that for the assessment year 2013-14, under consideration, the assessee has submitted before assessing officer, various details and evidences in support of agricultural income, vide letter dated 28.03.2016. That is, during the assessment proceedings, assessee submitted sale bills, Vouchers, details of expenses. The books of accounts were also produced by assessee along with photographs of Crop before the assessing officer. We note that assessing officer has not refuted or discredited these evidences and documents. The assessing officer does not mention why he is not accepting these evidences. On the contrary, the assessing officer has just brushed aside these evidences without even a word on why they are not acceptable. It is a well settled Law that when an assessee has all the possible evidence in support of its claim, they cannot be brushed aside based on surmises. Hence, we are not ....