AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n regard to the appeal before it arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by Circle- 5(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld.Assessing officer or in short Ld. AO). 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee/ appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of providing sales and marketing and reservation support services to Carlson Rezidor Group's affiliated hotels. It filed return of income and declared income of Rs. 3,31,40,680/-. Case was taken for scrutiny assessment and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Ld. AO inquired as to why half of the depreciation that is Rs. 4,82,86....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng it final opportunity to bring evidences in support of its claim. However, in its reply dated 20.12.2018 the fact that the assets were held jointly between the two aforementioned entities was denied by the assessee. Eventually, this fact was admitted by the assessee in their letter dated 27.12.2018. 3.2 However, no evidence has been brought forth by the assessee to show that the depreciation has not been claimed twice. There are no details of which assets were purchased and used jointly. In absence of any evidence to believe otherwise, it is assumed that the assets were owned jointly by the assessee and M/s Carlson Hotels (South Asia) Pvt. Ltd. in equal proportion. As a result, half of the depreciation claimed as expense in the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It will also set a wrong precedence and will create complication in future. Sharing of assets being an internal arrangement, may be done at their own end. Accordingly, as per Sec. 32, depreciation is allowable on this asset to the sister concern which has purchased the asset and not to the appellant in spite of showing the assets in the books. 8.7 The appeal in the case of sister concern for the same assessment year has been decided allowing full depreciation for the assets purchased. In view of these facts and legal provisions, the grounds are ruled against the appellant." 4. The assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :- "1) That the order of CIT(A) u/s 250 dated 21.10.2019 upholding the reduction in claim o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hoc and irrational, and is based on conjectures & surmises accordingly, is prayed to be deleted. 6) The charging of interest u/s 234D is bad in law and is prayed to be deleted. 7) That the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s Sec 271(l)(c) are on wholly illegal and untenable grounds since there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, by the assessee. 8) The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 9) The appellate craves the leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal." 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. Ld. AR made submission with regard to the facts as narrated above. It was submitted that before Ld. CIT(A), evidence was submitted to demons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... First Appellate Authority while passing the impugned assessment order on 21.10.2019 had also decided appeal bearing no. 10446/18-19 of the sister concern of the present appellant and allowed the ground of the sister concern's appeal observing that having purchased the assets the sister concern is entitled for full depreciation on the assets. However, Ld. AO interpreted it in some other way, while passing order u/s 250/143(3) of the Act and same is not matter of present lis. What is material is that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed full depreciation on the assets in favour of the sister concern and as accordingly observed in case of assessee/ appellant also in para no. 8.7 of order of Ld. CIT(A). 8. Further, it can be observed that assessee does n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had received the possession but sale deed was not executed. There was no dispute of two persons jointly claiming to be in fractional ownership and accordingly claiming fractional depreciation. Rather in this judgment it is observed in para 12 and 13 as follows :- "12. In P.K Badiani v. CIT[1976] 105 ITR 642 the Supreme Court has observed that allowance for depreciation is to replace the value of an asset to the extent it has depreciated during the period of accounting relevant to the assessment year and as the value has, to that extent, been lost, the corresponding allowance for depreciation takes place. 13. An overall view of the above said authorities show that the very concept of depreciation suggests that the ....