M.Arunachalam and Co, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1139/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8196 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: J CHANDRASEKARAN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , !' . #$#% , & '' ( [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 1139/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-2012 M/S. M. ARUNACHALAM AND CO, NO.117/79, LLOYDS ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN AAAFM 6851F ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS RANGE VIII, CHENNAI. ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. J. CHANDRASEKARAN, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SUPRIYO PAL, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 13-10-2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-10-2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST A ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-13, CHENNAI ITA NO. 1139/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: ASSAILS AN ADDITION ARISING OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM OF >11,60,000/-. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACTOR IES. AS PER ASSESSEE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT R EACHED AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION THAT IT HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATI ON ON LAND ALSO. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD . ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT HIMSELF A SUM OF >11,60,000/- AS EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON LAND. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE THOUGH ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) TOOK AN ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 80% DEPRE CIATION ON COST OF WINDMILL WHICH INCLUDED LAND VALUE OF >14,50,000 /-. POINTING OUT OF DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO .19. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON OFFICE LAND OF >2,92,82,496/- NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE SUM OF >2,95,95,0 00/- WHICH WAS PRESUMED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO INCLUDE VALUE OF LAND DID NOT HAVING IN IT ANY LAND AT ALL. ACCORDING TO LD. AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE LAND FOR WINDMILL GENERATOR COSTING >14,50,000/- WA S SEPARATELY SHOWN ITA NO. 1139/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: IN THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED THEREON. THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, DISALLOWANCE WAS WR ONGLY MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRO NGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TOTAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR CAME TO > 2,76,96,997/-. THE BREAKUP OF CLAIM IS PLACED BEFORE US AS PAPER BOOK IN PAGE NO.19. THIS IS THE VERY SAME AMOUNT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME COMPUTATION STATEMENT PLACED AT PAPER BO OK PAGE NO.7. THE BREAKUP OF >2,76,96,997/- GIVEN IN THE PAPER B OOK CLEARLY SHOW THAT LAND FOR WINDMILL GENERATION WAS VALUED AT >14 ,50,000/- AND NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AGAINST THE ABOVE SU M. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION A DETAILED VERIFICATION IS NECESSARY T O FIND OUT WHETHER >2,95,95,000/- SHOWN AS WIND ELECTRIC GENERATOR I NCLUDE ANY LAND. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER REQUIR ES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWA NCE OF DEPRECIATION ITA NO. 1139/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR V ERIFICATION AND DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . #$#% ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 28TH OCTOBER, 2016 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF