TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 19.03.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on fact and circumstances of case of appellant. Learned Assessing Officer, NFAC has erred for disallowing depreciation at higher rate of 30% on JCB and Tata Hitachi as the appellant was very much eligible for claiming higher depreciation and CIT(A), NFAC has erred for confirming the same. 2. That on fact and circumstances of case of appellant. Learned Assessing Officer, NFAC has erred for disallowing interest of Rs. 14,01,072/- on hire charges u/s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS as well as CIT(A), NFAC has erred for confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.09.2013, declaring a loss of Rs. (-) 17,02,395/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 3. As the assessee company had failed to put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the A.O, therefore, the latter proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis and after, inter alia, making certain additions/ disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance of the assessee's claim for higher rate of depreciation on JCB and Tata Hitachi vehicles i.e @30%; (ii) disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of the assessee's claim for deduction of interest charges; and (iii) carrying out adjustment to the "book profit" disclosed by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the A.O had given two-fold reasons for not accepting the same, viz. (i) that as the subject vehicles were not motor lorries/motor taxies used in the business of running them on hire as provided in Rule 5, Appendix-I (effective from A.Y. 2006-07 onwards), thus, they were not eligible for higher rate of depreciation; and (ii) the subject vehicles unlike motor lorries, motor truck could not have been used in the business of running it on hire. Rebutting the aforesaid observations of the A.O, the Ld. AR had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Gaylord Constructions, ITA No. 1255 of 2009, wherein it was held that JCB is entitled to higher rate of depreciation. 8. Apropos the disallo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was vehemently submitted by him that as the assessee company by adopting a lackadaisical approach had not only failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, but had also failed to prosecute the matter before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the said appeal had rightly been dismissed by the first appellate authority. 11. As is discernible from the written submissions filed by the assessee company, it transpires that it had in the "Form 35" based on exhaustive grounds of appeal assailed the subject addition/disallowance as well as adjustment made by the A.O to the "book profit" disclosed by the assessee u/s. 115JB of the Act. Admittedly, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon'ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the point....