Asian Oilfield Service Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 144/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8037 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LIMITED VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD .......... ...APPELLANT 7 TH FLOOR, B-WING MANUBHAI TOWER, SAYAJIGUNJ, BARODA-390 020 [PAN : AABCA 7958 F] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .......................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA APPEARANCES BY: DHARMESH SHAH & DHAVAL SHAH FOR THE ASSESSEE RP MAURYA FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 12.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 08.12.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 18 TH OCTOBER 2012, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-I, BARODA IN TH E MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOW S:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING HIS PRED ECESSOR'S ORDER FOR AY 2008-09 IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE AND DENIED DEPRECIA TION @ 60% ON EQUIPMENTS IN QUESTION, WHICH ARE HIGHLY SOPHISTICA TED, ELECTRONIC AND FULLY AUTOMATED SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS WHICH WORK AS C OMPUTERS, BY TREATING THE SAME TO BE GENERAL PLANT AND MACHINERY ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND THUS GRANTING DEPRECIATION THEREON @ 15% AS AGA INST 60% CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING THEM AS COMPUTERS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWI NG ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON EQUIPMENTS TREATED AS GENERAL PLANT & MACHINERIES I N GROUND NO.1, WHICH WERE INSTALLED AND PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION @ 60% TOGETHER WI TH THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE EQUIPMENTS TREATED AS PLANT & M ACHINERY IN GROUND NO. 1, ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LIMITED VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 6 IGNORING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS A MI NERAL OIL CONCERN AND HENCE ENTITLED TO SUCH HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 3. SO FAR AS THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUNDS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE CONCERNED, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH WAS HEARD ALONG WITH THIS APPEAL, WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS APPEAL AS WELL. 4. VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE, WE HAVE REJECTED SIMILAR GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BY OBSERVING A S FOLLOWS:- 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS AR E LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCH ASED CERTAIN SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT FROM A CANADIAN COMPANY BY THE NA ME OF ARAM SYSTEMS LTD, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.7,09,31,184, CLAIMED TO HAVE PUT IT TO USE ON 13.03.2008 AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION @ 60% , TREATING THE EQUIPMENT AS A COMPUTER, AMOUNTING TO RS.2,12,79,35 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ALSO NOTED THAT THE EQUIPMENTS WE RE RECEIVED BY DIFFERENT PACKAGES AND FIVE OF THESE PACKAGES CONTAINING TWO ITEMS WERE CLEARED BY THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES AT IGI AIRPORT ON 08.04.2008 . ONCE A PART OF EQUIPMENT WAS NOT EVEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVA NT PREVIOUS YEAR, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS NO QU ESTION OF THE EQUIPMENTS BEING PUT TO USE IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. A COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY (B/E), CERTIFIED BY THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES AND EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF PART OF EQUIPMENT ON 08.04.2008, WAS PLACED IN, AND MADE PART OF, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. AS REGARDS ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION @ 60%, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SUCH A RATE IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY FOR COMPU TERS AND NOT FOR EQUIPMENT. THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE TR EATED AS COMPUTER AS THE EQUIPMENT HAS THREE CRUCIAL COMPONENTS WHICH QUALIF Y THE MACHINE TO BE TERMED AS COMPUTER INPUT CONSOLE, PROCESSING CONS OLE AND OUTPUT CONSOLE. THIS PLEA WAS ALSO REJECTED. WHILE DOING SO, THE A SSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- (5.3) BY DEFINING THE EQUIPMENTS AS ABOVE, THE ASSE SSEE IS TRIED TO CLAIM THAT THE ASSET FALLS IN CLASSIFICATION OF COM PUTER & SOFTWARE. THE ARGUMENTS OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTABLE ON FOLLO WING GROUND: (I) THE ITEMS I.E. PLANT & MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT U SED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SEISMIC & GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PURPOSE IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT ALTOGETHER FROM THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. (II) THE COMPUTER IS DEVICE WHICH COMPUTES OR PROCE SS THE DATA BASED ON SOFTWARE. THE SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT REC EIVES SIGNALS / FREQUENCY FROM THE EARTH. THE SEISMIC S URVEY EQUIPMENTS FORM AN ASSET BY ANALYZING THESE SIGNALS FROM ITS EQUIPMENTS. (III) NOW A DAY, ALL THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES WORK S ON BASED ON COMPUTER, IT DOES NOT MEANS THAT THE PLANT & MACHIN ERY CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS COMPUTER SYSTEM. IT CAN BE SEEN AT PO WER ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LIMITED VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 6 DISTRIBUTION, MEDICAL/ SURGICAL EQUIPMENT, TV/VIDEO , MISSILES, AERO PLANES, MOBILE ETC ALL ARE COMPUTERIZED; BUT T HE ASSET DOES NOT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF COMPUTER. (IV)THE ASSESSEE ITSELF BEFORE THE CUSTOMS AUTHORIT Y DECLARED THE ITEMS AS SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT AND PAID DUTIES. ONLY TO GET HIGHER DEPRECIATION ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING EQUIPMENTS AS COMPUTER. (V) IN THE BILLS, INVOICES, SHIPPING INVOICES NOWHE RE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE EQUIPMENTS AS COMPUTER. (VI) THE DEFINITION & ANALYSIS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AB OVE; IT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE EQUIPMENT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF C OMPUTER. (VII) SIMILAR SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS ASSETS, ALR EADY TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PLANT & MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, THE CLASSIFICATION OF SEISMIC SURVEY EQU IPMENT TREATED BY ASSESSEE AS COMPUTER IS REJECTED AND DEPRECIATION @ 60% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION @15% ALLOWABLE FOR PLANT & MACHINERY F OR THE PERIOD (BELOW 180 DAYS) PUT TO USE AN AMOUNT OF 15% OF (RS .7,09,31,184 - RS.63,09,207)/2 WHICH COMES RS.48,46,448/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. IN A VERY WELL REASONED AND D ETAILED ORDER, LEARNED CIT(A) JUSTIFIED AND APPROVED THE STAND OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF HIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:- 2.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE, APPELLAN T'S SUBMISSIONS, AO'S REPORT AND APPELLANT'S FURTHER COMMENTS. THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT SERVICE O F SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 9.9.2010. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, MATTER NEEDS TO BE DECIDED AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUN T MERITS OF APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS INTO ACCOUNT. THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY ADJUDICATED HEREUNDER. AS PER THE 'BILL OF ENTRY FO R HOME CONSUMPTION' ISSUED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES, ALL THE ITEMS IN RESPECT OF SALE ORDER NO.209904 TOTALLING TO US $ 10,94,186 WE RE CLEARED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON 8.4.2008. AS PER ASSESSING O FFICER, ONLY TWO ITEMS CONSISTING OF 5 PACKAGES OF THE VALUE RS.63,0 9,207/- WERE CLEARED ON 8.4.2008; HOWEVER, AS PER 5 BILLS OF ENT RY (ON PAGES 4-10 OF THE PAPER BOOK), ENTIRE CONSIGNMENT OF THE VALUE US $ 10,94,186 IN RESPECT OF SALE ORDER NO. 209904 MENTIONED IN COMME RCIAL INVOICE IN THIS REGARD OF ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. WAS CLEARED ON 8,4 .2008 BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON VARI OUS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES TO CONTEND THAT INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT IMPORTED FROM ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. WAS COMPLETED ON 13.3.2008/27.2.2008; HOWEVER, APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY WORTHWHI LE EXPLANATION REGARDING DATE OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF EQUIPMENT OF THE VALUE US $ 10,94,186 TO BE 8.4.2008. IF THE DATE MENTIONED I. E. 8.4.2008 IN THE ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LIMITED VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PAGE 4 OF 6 BILLS OF ENTRY WAS A MISTAKE, AS CONTENDED, APPELLA NT COULD HAVE OBTAINED A CORRIGENDUM OR CLARIFICATION TO THIS EFF ECT FROM CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. ONUS OF PROVI NG THAT THE DATE OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE WAS NOT 8.4.2008 BUT WAS PRIOR TO 31.3.2008 WAS SQUARELY OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCH ARGED. IN THIS SITUATION, THE DATE MENTIONED IN BILLS OF ENTRY HAS TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT. WHEN THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS CLEARED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON 8.4.2008, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF ITS INSTALLATION IN MIZORAM OR NAGALAND BEFORE 31.3.2008 AS CONTENDED. FURTHER, APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTI ON WERE IMPORTED IN RESPECT OF CONTRACTS AWARDED BY OIL & NATURAL GAS C ORPORATION LTD. (ONGC) AND OIL INDIA LTD, (OIL) AND WERE INSTALLED AT NAGALAND AND MIZORAM RESPECTIVELY BEFORE 31.3.2008 IS NOT PROVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, AS DISCUSSE D HENCEFORTH. THE INVOICES ISSUED BY ARAM SYSTEMS LD., CANADA DO NOT CONTAIN ANY REFERENCE TO THE ONGC OR OIL CONTRACTS, NEITHER THE CONTRACTS THEMSELVES CONTAIN ANY REFERENCE TO THE EQUIPMENT I MPORTED FROM ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. THE AIRWAYS BILLS DO NOT CONTAIN ANY DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS SENT TO NAGALAND OR MIZORAM. APPELLANT HA S REFERRED TO CORRESPONDENCE WITH ONGC (ANNEXURE 5 OF PB) TO CONT END THAT EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION HAD REACHED PROJECT SITE AND WAS PUT TO USE. THE LETTERS REFERRED TO BY APPELLANT DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, PROVE THAT THE ARAM ARIES SPM LIFE EQUIPMENT HAD REACHED NAGALAND OR WAS INSTALLED, AS THERE IS NO SUCH AVERMENT IN THESE LE TTERS. IN FACT, THERE IS NO EXPLICIT OR OBLIQUE REFERENCE TO THE EQUIPMENT I N QUESTION IN THESE LETTERS WRITTEN BY APPELLANT'S STAFF, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BY APPELLANT. MOREOVER, THE CORRESPONDENCE FILED ARE LETTERS FROM APPELLANT TO ONGC ONLY. COPY OF NOT A SINGLE LETTER FROM ONGC TO APPE LLANT IN THIS REGARD IS FILED. AUTHENTICITY OF CORRESPONDENCE FILED, WHI CH DOES NOT BEAR ANY RECEIPT STAMP OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM ONGC IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED. FURTHER, ONGC/OIL IN THEIR COMMUNICATIONS DATED 13. 3.2008 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 147)/27.2.2008 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 154) RESP ECTIVELY HAVE ONLY COMMUNICATED THAT MOBILIZATION AGAINST THE CON TRACTS WAS COMPLETED; HOWEVER, THESE LETTERS DO NOT IN ANY WAY PROVE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION. THE FACT THAT APPELLA NT RAISED INVOICE FOR MOBILIZATION CHARGES AS PER CONTRACTS WITH ONGC & O IL ALSO DOES NOT PROVE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION IN NAGALAND OR MIZORAM, WHEN MAJOR PART OF THE SAME WAS CLEARED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON 8.4.2008. DEMARCATION DONE BY APPELLANT OF THE EQUI PMENT OF THE VALUE RS.7,09,31,184/- BETWEEN ONGC & OIL PROJECTS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND CANNOT THEREFORE, BE RELIED UPON. MOREOVER, AS MENTIONED, APPELLANT HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY DIRECT EVI DENCE, WHICH COULD PROVE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT CONCERNED AT PROJECT SITES FOR EXECUTION OF ONGC/OIL PROJECTS IN NAGALAND/MIZORAM. THE INSTALLATION ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE SIGNED BETWEEN ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. AND APPELLANT ON 28.2.2008 CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN VIE W OF THE BILLS OF ENTRY DATED 8.4.2008 ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORI TY I.E. CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THIS INSTALLATION ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EVEN INDICATE THE PLACE, WHERE IT WAS SIGNED. SINCE MAJOR PART OF THE EQUIPMENT OF THE VALUE US $ 10,94 ,186 IMPORTED FROM ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LIMITED VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PAGE 5 OF 6 ARAM SYSTEMS LTD., CANADA WAS CLEARED BY INDIAN CUS TOMS ON 8.4,2008 AND APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE AN Y EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM ABOUT INSTALLATION HAVING BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31.3.2008, AO'S ACTION IN DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEPR ECIATION OF RS.2,12,79,355/- IS CONFIRMED. 2.2.1. GROUND NO.1.1 OF APPEAL THAT WITHOUT PREJUDI CE, CORRECT RATE OF DEPRECIATION WAS 60% INSTEAD OF 15% IS NOW TAKEN UP . THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION IMPORTED FROM ARAM SYSTEMS LTD., CANADA WERE SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS. AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON INTERNET, ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN RESEARCH, DEVE LOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF SEISMIC RECORDING SYSTEM AND ALSO OFF ERS NETWORK TELEMETRY RECORDING SYSTEMS. ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. IS N OT A MANUFACTURER OF COMPUTERS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE. MAIN FUNCTION OF SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS MANUFACTURED BY ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. IS TO ACQUIRE ANALOG SYSTEMS DATA FROM GEOPHONES AND TO TRANSMIT THE DAT A DIGITALLY TO THE CENTRAL EQUIPMENT, LINE TAP UNIT ETC., WHICH INTERC ONNECTS BASELINE CABLE FROM THE RECORDING TRUCK TO MULTIPLE RECEIVER LINES ETC. IN THIS PROCESS, COMPUTERS MAY ALSO BE USED AS A PART OR TOOL; HOWEV ER, OVERALL FUNCTIONALITY OF SOPHISTICATED SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIP MENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OF A COMPUTER. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EQUIPME NT AS PER INVOICES ITSELF INDICATES THAT IT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS 'C OMPUTER' AND ITS MAIN FUNCTION WAS TO CARRY OUT SEISMIC SURVEY. APPELLANT 'S CONTENTION THAT THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS NOTHING BUT 'COMPUTER' CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE CLASSIFICATION BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES IS ALSO R ELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IN NOT TREATING THE EQUI PMENT AS COMPUTERS/COMPUTER SOFTWARE PER-SE, ELIGIBLE FOR 60 % DEPRECIATION AND INSTEAD ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 15% IS UPHELD. THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER YEAR, DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED @ 60% IS NOT A BAR O N TAKING A DIFFERENT AND CORRECT VIEW, WHEN FACTS OF THE CASE SO WARRANT . RESJUDICATA IS NOT A MAXIM TO BE FOLLOWED COMPULSORILY IN INCOME TAX M ATTERS. GROUND NO.1.1 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS LAID A LOT OF EMPHASIS UPON THE TEST REPORT DATED 27.02.2008 SIGNED BY THE PSU CLIENTS WHO WERE RENDE RED SEISMIC SURVEY SERVICES. HE SUBMITS THAT THE DATE ON THE BILL OF ENTRY IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, ONCE T HE GOVT OFFICIALS CONFIRM THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS DULY INSTALLED AND FUNCTIONAL ON 27.02.2008, NOTHING REALLY TURNS ON THE BILL OF ENTRY. THIS PLEA, HOWEVER, DO ES NOT IMPRESS US. ONCE THERE IS A REASONABLE EVIDENCE, AS IN THIS CASE, TH AT A PART OF EQUIPMENT DID NOT EVEN CROSS THE CUSTOMS BEFORE 31.03.2008, THE D EPRECIATION ON SUCH EQUIPMENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR. IF THE DATE GIVEN IN THE BILL OF ENTRY IS INCORRECT, IT IS FOR THE AS SESSEE TO OBTAIN NECESSARY CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. THIS D ATE CANNOT BE IGNORED ON THE BASIS OF A RATHER VAGUE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CONFIRM ATION THAT EXPERIMENTAL SHOOTING COMPLETED AND PRODUCTION SHOOTING COMMENCE D ON 27.02.2008 AND, ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LIMITED VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PAGE 6 OF 6 IN ANY CASE, IT DOES NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE RELATED SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT WAS ACTUALLY USED ON 27.02.2008. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS VE RY WELL ANALYZED ALL THESE ASPECTS AND WE ARE IN CONSIDERED AGREEMENT WITH HIS REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS ON THIS POINT. SIMILARLY, LEARNED CIT( A)S STAND ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF 15% DEPRECIATION ALSO MEETS OUR APPROVAL. JUST B ECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT HAS AN ELEMENT OF DATA PROCESSING, WHICH IS PRESENT IN MOST MODERN EQUIPMENTS, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPUTER. TH E VISUALS SHOWN TO US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL DO NOT HELP US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS NOTHING BUT A HIGH END COMPUTER. UNDOUBTEDLY, IT DOES INVO LVE FEEDING THE INFORMATION THROUGH VARIOUS INPUT CONSOLES AND PROCESSING THE S AME BUT THEN ESSENTIALLY THE EQUIPMENT IS A SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT AND PRE SENCE OF PROCESSING WOULD NOT ALTER ITS CHARACTER. ON THIS POINT ALSO, WE APPROVE THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE APPROVE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5. WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE M ATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WE UPHOLD THE OR DER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE THUS DISMISSED. 6. COMING TO GROUND NO.3, NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENT WAS RAISED IN SUPPORT OF THIS GRIEVANCE AND, THEREFORE, THIS GRIEVANCE IS TREATED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO.3 IS THUS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 8 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- S S GODARA PRAMOD KUM AR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) *BT AHMEDABAD, THE 8 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD