DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI V. SARSWAT INFOTECH LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1315/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9838 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR SUH
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1315/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 15(3)(2), 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.451, AAYKAR BHAVAN,M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ...... APPELLA NT VS. M/S. SARASWAT INFOTECH LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, MADHUSHREE, PLOT NO.85, DISTRICT BUSINESS CENTRE, SECTOR-17, VASHI,NAVI MUMBAI. PAN:AAJCS 4303A ..... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAM TIWARI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SUH AR DATE OF HEARING : 22/08/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/08/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE PE RTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI DATED 18/03/2015, WHICH IN TURN, ARISES OUT OF ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 18/03/2015. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- 2 ITA NO.1315/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT DEPRECIATION ON ATM IS ALLOWABLE @ 60% IGNORING THE FACT THAT ATM IS A CASH DISPENDING MACHINE WITH A PROJECTOR AND THER EFORE IS IN THE NATURE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND THEREFORE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED @15%. 3. THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF PROVIDING I.T CONSULTANCY AND OTHER I.T ENABLED SERVICES. AT THE STAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THE W DV OF THE ATMS @15% AS AGAINST 60% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE I TSELF HAD ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 60%, YET SCALED DOWN THE DEPRECIATI ON ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON MERIT. THE CIT(A) HAS SET-ASIDE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 VID E ITA(L) NO.1243 OF 2012. 4. AGAINST SUCH DECISION OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE QUITE FAIRLY CONCE DED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT( A) IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION @60% ON THE WDV OF THE ATMS. THEREFOR E, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND REVENUE FAILS IN ITS APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/08/2017. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 23/08/2017 VM , SR. PS 3 ITA NO.1315/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI