TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 of Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order". Factual Matrix 2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Iron and Steel items. It filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 13/02/2021 declaring loss of Rs. 33,41,53,728/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dt. 25/11/2021. 2.1 The Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) Bengaluru while processing the return under section 143(1) unjustifiably made an addition of Rs. 51,42,946/- under section 36(1)(va) on account of late deposit of employees contribution to PF/ESI despite the fact that the same was duly paid before filing of Income Tax Return. 2.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther not justified not to consider and allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- as duly disclosed in the Tax Audit Report as against wrongly claimed in the return of income at Rs. 1,03,13,420/- despite the fact that same had been claimed before CPC vide letter dt. 29.09.21. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) in so far as 'issues and grounds' raised in the present appeal before us is concerned has held as under: "6. In the ITR the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,03,13,420/- which was allowed by the CPC while processing u/s 143(1) whereas in this ground of appeal the assessee has claimed depreciation Rs. 89,96,72,987/-. In the written submission during the appellate proceedings it was stated that depreciation of Rs. 89,96,72,98....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hold the action of the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru by observing that the same is not a mistake apparent from record whereas in the Tax Audit Report, this very amount of Rs. 89,96,72,987/-had been duly mentioned by the Auditors. 3. That action of the Learned CIT(A) in rejecting the claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,03,13,420/- claimed in the return is unjustified as the Tax Audit Report also form the part of the record. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the ground relating to payment of bonus payable of Rs. 7,03,125/-, which was otherwise allowable u/s 43B of the Act. Record of Hearing 6. The hearing in the appeal took place on 14/08/2024 before us when both the parties appeared and were heard at length on m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Heidrick and Struggles Inc. reported in (2024) 461 ITR 33 (Del) wherein it has been held that it is the duty of AO to grant relief to the assessee even if not claimed. Reliance was placed on CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955. It was finally contended that in so far issue of payment of bonus is considered there is no finding given by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order and this limited issue relating to payment of bonus be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 7. Per contra the Ld. DR has contended that assessee company ought to have filed revised return for such an issue of depreciation and supported orders of lower authorities below. Findings and Conclusions 8. We n....