High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Bhullar Builders (P) Ltd.
Sections 32, 260A
Asst. Year 1994-95
D.K. Jain, C.J. & Hemant Gupta, J.
IT Appeal No. 275 of 2004
6th December, 2005
Counsel Appeared
D.S. Patwalia, for the Petitioner : None, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, C.J. :
This appeal by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is directed against order dt. 17th May, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No. 562/Chandi/2003 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1994-95. According to the Revenue, the impugned order gives rise to the following substantial question of law :
“Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in separately allowing depreciation to the assessee for the asst. yr. 1994-95 when the net profit rate at 8 per cent was adopted thereby deeming that the deductions under ss. 30 to 38 have already been given full effect ?”
Since, in our opinion, insofar as this Court is concerned, the issue sought to be raised by the Revenue is no more res integra, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, giving rise to the present appeal. Suffice it to note that the only issue before the Tribunal was that when a net profit rate is applied because of non-maintenance of proper books of account, the assessee is still entitled to claim other business expenses, like salary, interest and depreciation, etc. ? A similar issue came up for consideration of this Court in CIT vs. Chopra Bros. India (P) Ltd. (2001) 170 CTR (P&H) 597 : (2001) 252 ITR 412 (P&H). The question for consideration in that case was whether an assessee was entitled to the claim of depreciation on machinery, when a net profit rate on contract receipts had been applied. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, this Court opined that such a claim had to be separately taken into account, provided the requisite particulars had been furnished by the assessee. In an attempt to distinguish the said decision, Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the ratio of the decision is not applicable on the facts of the instant case inasmuch as in the present case necessary particulars in support of the claims had not been furnished by the assessee.
Having perused the documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that the contention is devoid of any substance. In the order of the CIT(A) it has been specifically noted that the audit accounts along with audit report, balance sheet, P&L accounts, fixed assets and depreciation chart, as prescribed, had been filed with the Department. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to controvert the said observation by the CIT(A). Thus, in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Chopra Bros. (supra), no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, survives for our consideration. Consequently, we decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed.
[Citation : 286 ITR 686]
