Appeal—Substantial question of law—Assessee filed return of income—AO completed assessment after allowing additional depreciation claimed by assessee on machines—CIT held that additional depreciation was wrongly allowed to assessee as machines were purchased before 31st March, 2002 but installed after 31st March, 2002—ITAT allowed assessee’s appeal by holding that assessee has made available documents and evidences in support of its claim—All documents and evidences were filed before AO and after perusing same, AO had allowed assessee’s claim of additional depreciation—Observation of CIT was without rebutting evidences and documents placed on record by assessee—Held, s. 32(1)(iia) provided for additional depreciation on acquisition and installation of machines to be made after 31st March, 2002—Reasons sought to be advanced by ITAT, regrettably show absolute non-application of mind—Where evidence was cited in support of proof of fact exact materials on which such inference was being drawn had to be specified—After all, ITAT was final fact finding authority—Saying “all documents would be found in paper book” amounted to dealing with matter very cursorily—Factum of sale/acquisition of machines had to be proved legally in terms of payment of consideration, date of delivery, passing of property, terms and conditions of contract—Installation of assets had also to be established in a like manner—Such absence of reasons on a factual issue in order of ITAT which was final authority on facts was itself a substantial question of law—That part of order of ITAT dealing with additional depreciation was set aside—ITAT was directed to re-hear parties on said issues and pronounce a fresh order—Matter Remanded.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT. LTD.

(2019) 104 CCH 0101 KolHC