T.C Terrytex Limited, Muktsar V. The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda

ITA 143/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85941 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.143(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :AACCT3244L M/S. T.C. TERRYTEX LIMITED VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, MUKTSAR. RANGE-II, BATHINA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. PADAM BAHL, CA RESPONDENT BY:SMT. RATINDER KAUR, DR DATE OF HEARING:10/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:17/03/2015 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 30.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM MADE BY TH E APPELLANT FOR ALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(IIA) ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT T HE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS A STATUTORY ALLOWANCE W HICH ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 2 HAD TO BE ALLOWED, EVEN WHEN IT HAD NOT BEEN CLAIME D AS PER EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 32(1) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE LODGED A FRESH CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECI ATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS.6,29,28,039/-. THE AO DIS ALLOWED THE SAME FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE A REVIS ED RETURN UPTO 31.03.2011 AND SINCE THE FRESH CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N HAS BEEN MADE AFTER THE SAID DATE THE SAME WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 4. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, MR. PADAM BAHL, CA THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE R AISED IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. SATIA SYNTHETICS LTD., MUKTSAR, WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2014 IN ITA NO.607(ASR)/2013 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF ITAT, HAS BEEN PLACED O N RECORD. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND T HE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) MAINLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT, R EPORTED IN (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), IS REPRODUCED HEREINB ELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO WH ETHER THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHER THA N BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION WAS 1995-96. THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 30-11-1995, BY THE APPELLANT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. ON 12-1-1998, THE APPELLANT SOUGH T TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION BY WAY OF A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY MODIFYING AN APPLICATION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WITHOUT REVISING THE RETURN. 3. THIS APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS ALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE ORDER OF THE FURTHER APPEAL O F THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS ALLOWE D. THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THIS COURT AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E TRIBUNAL WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER. H E HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWE R COMPANY LTD. V. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, TO CONTEND THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE POINTS OF LAW EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE T RIBUNAL. 4. THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF TH E TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS TO ENTE RTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDED THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RE TURN. IN THE ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE CIVIL APP EAL. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS LIMITE D TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POW ER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 7. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THE S AID CASE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE AO BUT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE ITAT U/S 254 OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE US BY WAY OF PRESENT APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE I SSUE WHETHER THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS A VALID CLAIM OR NOT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INADVERTENTLY THE ASSESSEE OMITTED T O CLAIM THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT @ 20% AMOUNTING TO RS . 13,02,92,452/-. THE REVENUE HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED OR HAVE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT SUCH OMISSION WAS DELIBERATE OR MALAFIDE. THE OMISSION H AS BEEN MADE INADVERTENTLY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN T HE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL-I VERSUS M/S. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOMBAY), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A ) AND THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY INDICATED THAT BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAD E XERCISED THEIR JURISDICTION ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 5 TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM. THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE ERROR IN NOT CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS INADVERTENT COULD NOT BE FAULTED FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. IT WAS A FINDING OF FACT WHICH COULD NOT BE TERMED PERVERSE. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT M ILITATED AGAINST THE FINDING. THE REVENUE HAD NOT SUGGESTED MUCH LESS E STABLISHED THAT THE OMISSION WAS DELIBERATE OR MALA FIDE. BOTH THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITIES HAD THEMSELVES CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM AND ALL OWED IT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, AMONGST DECISIONS OF VARIOUS OT HER COURTS OF LAW HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INADVERTEN T AND THE OMISSION WAS NOT DELIBERATE OR MALAFIDE. 8. AS REGARDS THE EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 32(1) WHICH SPEAKS OF ALLOWING DEPRECIATION U/S 32 WHETHER OR NOT THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME. IN THE SAID EXPLANATION WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 1.4.2002, HAS IN FACT, BEEN INSERTED AFTER THE SUB-SECTION (I I) OF SECTION 32(1). BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IN OUR VIEW, THE SAME IS APPLICABLE FO R SECTION 32(1)(IIA), SINCE NORMAL DEPRECIATION AND ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ARE PART OF DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1) ESPECIALLY OF SECTION 32(1)(I), WHICH INCLUDE S THE MACHINERY FOR ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 6 ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE, ON THIS ACCOUNT, A LEGAL CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED BY THE INCOME TAX AU THORITIES AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE ADDITION AL DEPRECIATION AS PER LAW, SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVERSE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, A MRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE I.E., M/S. S ATIA SYNTHETICS LTD. (SUPRA) AND OUR ORDER THEREIN, IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE HEREINBELOW: 9. AS REGARDS TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I.E. I.T.A. NO. 607(ASR)/2013, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONL Y ONE GROUND REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 6,29,28,037/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT ON PLANT AND MACHINER Y, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE A REVISED RETUR N UPTO 31.03.2011 AND SINCE THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE IS A FRESH CLAIM AND HAS BEEN MADE AFTER SAID DATE, THE SAME WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. LEARNED FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A STATUTORY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM ON THE SAME SUBJECT T O THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. 10. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY FRESH CLAIM AND IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE PLANT AND MAC HINERY ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION DATED 29.11.2011, H AS MADE A CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,29,28,039/-. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HA S GIVEN HIS ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 7 FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER REGARDING THE AFORES AID ISSUE AT PAGE NOS. 3 TO 5, THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: IN GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED TH AT THE A.O. ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLAN T FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOU NTING TO RS. 6,29,28,039/- UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE A CT. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE LODGED A FRESH CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHI NERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,29,28,039/-. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE SAME FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE A REVIS ED RETURN UPTO 31.03.2011 AND SINCE THE FRESH CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN MADE AFTER THE SAID DATE, THE SAME WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. IN APPEAL BEFORE ME, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT DEP RECIATION WAS A STATUTORY ALLOWANCE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGI BLE TO CLAIM THE SAME SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED IN SE CTION 32 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLA CED ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AND THE SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN CAREFULLY PER USED AND CONSIDERED. IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD II-(2) VS. SRI BALAJI SAGO AND STARCH PRODUCTS REPORTED AT (2012) (4) TMI 147 I.T.A.T. CHENNAI, THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION WAS WRONGLY MENTI ONED AND THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. HELD THE MISTAKE WAS APPARENT FROM RECORD AND AS NO FRESH CLAIM WAS MADE, THERE WAS NO NEED TO FILE THE REVISED RETURN. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDER ATION, A FRESH CLAIM HAS BEEN LODGED AND THUS THE FACTS OF T HE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. FUR THER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMCO INTERNATIONAL REPORTED AT (20 11) 332 ITR 306 (P&H), RELEVANT PARA NO. 4 AND 5 READ AS UN DER:- 4. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS. THE T RIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND FOUND THAT AS PER FOR M NO. 10CCB FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMISSIBLE. THE FINDING OF THE TRI BUNAL IS AS UNDER:- 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT HA S CORRECTLY ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 8 BEEN HELD BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INTER A LIA, THAT AS PER FORM 10CCB FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMISSIBLE AND THE S AME REMAINED TO BE ALLOWED. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS HEREBY UPHE LD IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPAR TMENT STANDS REJECTED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T MAKING ANY FRESH CLAIM AND HAD DULY FURNISHED THE DOCUMENT S AND SUBMITTED THE FORM FOR CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB, TH ERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR FILING ANY REVISED RETURN. THE JUDG MENTS RELIED UPON WAS NOT APPLICABLE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, IT WOUL D BE SEEN THAT THE CLAIM ALREADY MADE IN THE RETURN COULD BE CONSIDERED AND NO FRESH CLAIM CAN BE ENTERTAINED IF THE SAME H AS NOT BEEN MADE IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN. ACCORDINGLY, THIS JU DGMENT ALSO DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. AGAIN, THE LEARNED A/R HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUD GMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT, CENTRAL-I VS. M/S PRUTHVI BROKERS & S HAREHOLDERS (P) LTD. REPORTED AT (2011) 349 336 (BOM.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DECLARATION OF LAW IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND IF THAT BE SO, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY CANNOT MODIFY THE ASSES SMENT ORDER ON AN ADDITIONAL GROUND, EVEN IF NOT RAISED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THE GIST OF THIS JUDGMENT IS THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY EXERCISE THE POWERS OF ASSESSING OFFI CER BUT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION IS DIFFERENT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS FACTS OF THIS JUDGMENT HAVE NO BE ARING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. APART FROM ABOVE, THE LEARNED A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT EXPLANATION 5 BELOW SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE PROVISION OF THIS S UB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE D EDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION IN COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCO ME. HOWEVER, I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LEARNE D A/R IN ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 9 THIS REGARD BECAUSE SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT R EGARDING ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION COMES AFTER EX PLANATION 5 AND THUS THE SAME IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND NOT FOR THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL D EPRECIATION. THUS THE ACTION OF THE A.O. FOR NOT ENTERTAINING A FRESH CLAIM REGARDING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS UPHELD THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 11. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS GIVEN BY TH E LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE CASES CITED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS WRONGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOL DING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS A MATTER OF R ECORD, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE SIMPLY REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED THE REVI SED RETURN, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED WITHIN TIME. 12. KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSE E (SUPRA) BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y, WE ARE NOT COMMENTING UPON THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CLAIM FOR ADDIT ION OF DEPRECIATION ON PLANT OF MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,29,28,039/- FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY DA TED 29.11.2011 MAY BE ALLOWED, IF THE ASSESSEE FULFILS THE CONDITI ON ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. 13. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. I.T.A. NO. 607(ASR)/2013 IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 10. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOV E AND OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF SATIA SYNTHETICS LTD. (SUPRA), WE ALLO W BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE ITA NO.143(ASR)/2014 10 ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS PER LAW. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 143(ASR)/2014 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D.JAIN) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2015 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. T.C. TERRITEX LTD. MUKTSAR. 2. THE JCIT, R-II, BATHINDA. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.