AC|IT-Circle 5(1)(2), Bangalore V. M/s. Omni Matrix Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1505/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7533 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H L SOUMYA ACHAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1505/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU-560011. VS. M/S. OMNI MATRIX PVT. LTD., B-9, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 6 TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560044. PAN : AAACO3130G APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT. H. L. SOUMYA ACHAR, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) INTER ALIA ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) - 12, BANGALORE, IS OPPOSED TO THE LAW AND NOT ON THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE DE DUCTION U/S.10B WITHOUT SETTING OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM INCOME OF 100% EOU UNIT. FURTHER THE BROUGHT F ORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME NON-EOU UNIT AND CARRY FORWARD OF ANY RE MAINING LOSS HAS TO BE DONE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 AND SECTION 72 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 1505/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED UPON, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT ASSESSMENT ORDE R BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OTHER GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDG MENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD., [2012] 341 ITR 385 (KAR). THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA (SUPRA). NOW THE JUDGMENT OF JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE APEX COURT. THEREFORE THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN AS THE ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN TERMS OF THE JUDGME NT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA (SUPRA) . ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. /NSHYLU/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER