TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment order by ACIT, Circle 2, Thane, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 22.11.2018, for Assessment Year 2016-17. ITA No. 133/MUM/2025; Assessment Year: 2016-17 2. Grounds taken by revenue are reproduced as under: "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, while deciding Ground of Appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6, the CIT(A) vide Para 4.3 directed to allow the depreciation of Rs. 2,16,31,266/, without appreciating the fact that the total depreciation of Rs. 2,16,31,266/- includes the unclaimed depreciation of Rs. 11,72,128/including an amount of Rs. 11,72,128/- which stands dismissed by the CIT(A) in Para No.4.2.1 while deciding Ground Nos.1&3 in the impugned order, thereby bri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xable income and ensure continuity and correctness of depreciation over the years? 3. Whether the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Lid. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) is misplaced, considering that the said decision only bars entertaining fresh claims not made in the return, and does not apply to correction or re-computation of an existing claim during the assessment proceedings? 4. Whether the action of the Assessing Officer in refusing to entertain the correction of depreciation claim is contrary to the binding judicial precedents of the :- 4.1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in NTPC Lid. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), wherein the Supreme Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- as the amount disputed in appeal and the tax effect mentioned is Rs. 64,89,379/-. It is pointed out by the ld. Counsel of the assessee that this is an erroneous mention by the Revenue since this figure represents the total depreciation allowable as per the order of ld. CIT(A) and not the quantum actually disputed. In this regard, correct computation is furnished by the assessee which is tabulated below: S. N. Depreciation Rs. 1. Depreciation allowed by the AO 20,459,138 2. Depreciation allowed by the CIT(A) in addition to the depreciation allowed by the AO 11,72,128 3. Total allowed by the CIT(A)- Normal 2,16,31,266 4. Additional Depreciation allowed by the CIT(A) 97,23,986 5. Total depr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed revised return of income for the year. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) to deny the request made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. Assessment was thus, completed by accepting the returned income at Rs. 43,15,820/-. No addition or disallowance was made in the course of completing the assessment except for denying the two requests made by the assessee. The quantum of two requests made by the assessee comes to Rs. 1,08,96,114/- (Normal depreciation of Rs. 11,72,128/- and additional depreciation on new assets at the rate of 20% comes to Rs. 97,23,986/-) 5. Assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on these two req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the rate of 20% on the new assets acquired during the year, it remained to be claimed in the original return but was substantiated before the ld. CIT(A) by bringing relevant material on record. Thus, it is a case of calculation mistake in carrying forward of opening WDV to the year under consideration and claim of additional depreciation before the appellate authority which has been allowed at the first appellate stage. 6. We are convinced on the factual position that the amount in dispute by the Revenue is Rs. 1,08,96,114/- and not Rs. 2,16,31,266/- as mentioned in Form no.36 on which the tax effect has been computed at Rs. 64,89,379/-. Thus, we are in agreement with the preliminary objection raised by the assessee on the appeal filed....