2025 (7) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iation. It is also observed that the appellant did not respond to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment and issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act. In response to these notices, the appellant filed a letter dated 28.9.2021 stating the company has purchased office premises of Rs. 7.6 crores. The company has paid Rs. 1.5 crore on 6.5.2014 and balance of Rs. 6 crore was paid on 27.1.2015. The Ld. AO disallowed 50% of the depreciation claimed by appellant as the same was put to use less than 180 days. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by adjudicating that the appellant company should be the owner of asset and put to "use" and as the appellant is not the owner of asset for more ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AO during earlier assessment and reopening the same on this basis, is not tenable. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 7. At the outset, it is observed that there is a small delay of 27 days in filing appeal. An appeal and affidavit were filed by Ld. AR of appellant that the delay is due to mental disturbance caused by death of father of director. Hence, the delay is condoned and processed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 8. Heard both sides. As far as reopening is concerned, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment based on the information of Tax Audit report. This ground was not raised before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) and hence not adjudicated by them. Moreover, the appellant company has not filed any Return of Incom....