Shri Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhav , AMRAVATI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRAVATI CIRCLE,AMRAVATI , AMRAVATI

CO 1/NAG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4057 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U U KASAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.O. NO.1/NAG./2018 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.307/NAG./2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201314 ) SHRI SANJAY SHANKARRRAO JADHAV PROP. M/S. JADHAV GEARS M/S. JADHAV ICONS & M/S. JADHAV COTTEX MIDC, AMRAVATI 444 602 PAN AARPJ6547L CROSS OBJECTOR (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI .... RESPONDENT (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI REVENUE BY : SHRI U.U. KASAR DATE OF HEARING 22.10.2018 DATE OF ORDER 22.10 .2018 O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, A.M. THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST ORDER DATED 23 RD MAY 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)I, NAGPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20131 4. 2. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.307/NAG./2017, AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)1, NAG PUR. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN ON ACCOUNT OF 2 SHRI SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCU LAR NO.3/2018, DATED 11 TH JULY 2018. THE CBDT HAS ADVISED THE DEPARTMENT NOT TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE THE TAX EFFECT I NVOLVED IS LESS THAN ` 20 LAKH. THE CBDT ALSO ADVISED THE DEPARTMENT EITHER NOT TO PURSUE THE APPEALS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OR TO FILE A PETITION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SUCH APPEALS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FI LED CROSS OBJECTION TAKING A GROUND ON THE ISSUE OF DENIAL OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS DENIED DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY FROM THE SAID UNIT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REVENUE OPERATIONAL INCOME FR OM THE PLANT ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED, NO DEPRECIATIO N CAN BE ALLOWED. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS), FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER, UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON PLA NT AND MACHINERY. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DEPREC IATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF M/S. JADHAV COTTEX, IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, NA GPUR BENCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201112 IN ITA NO. 66/NAG./2017, WHEREIN 3 SHRI SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN OSWAL AGRO LTD., IN ITA NO.530/2011, HELD THAT WHEN A PARTICULAR ASSET IS ADDED IN A PARTICULAR BLOCK OF ASSET, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT AN INDIVIDUAL ITEM IN THE SAID BLOCK REMAINS UNUTILIZED, DEPRECIA TION ON THE BLOCK OF ASSET HAS TO BE GRANTED. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL, IN ITA NO.66/NAG ./2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201112 HAS CONSIDERED SIMILAR ISSU E AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN OSWAL AGRO LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE DENIED ON ANY PLANT AND MACHINERY WHEN IT IS A PART OF BLOCK OF ASSETS MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT A PARTICULAR PLANT AND MACHINERY REMAINS UNUTILIZED. IN THIS VIE W OF THE MATTER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.10.2018 SD/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- G. MANJUNATHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 22.10.2018 4 SHRI SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (A.R./SR. P.S./P.S.) ITAT, NAGPUR