ACIT, CHENNAI V. Anand Transport, CHENNAI

ITA 1508/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4864 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S P PALANIAP
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !', $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1508/MDS/2017 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI. V. M/S ANAND TRANSPORT, NO.1, 9 TH STREET, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AAAFA 1037 D (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.P. PALANIAPPAN, ACA 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2018 23( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2, CHENN AI, DATED 28.03.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION ON BOAT JETTY. 2 I.T.A. NO.1508/MDS/17 3. MS. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REPLACED CONVEYER BELT IN THE BOAT JETTY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CONVEYER BEL T, ROLLER, ETC. ARE PART OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR WHICH THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION ONLY AT THE RATE OF 15%, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 100% DEPRECIATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D. R., BY REPLACEMENT OF CONVEYER BELT AND ROLLER BY NEW ONE, THE ASSESSEE GETS ENDURING BENEFIT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANN OT CLAIM 100% DEPRECIATION. 4. WE HEARD SHRI SP. PALANIAPPAN, THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS REPLACED CONVEYER BELT AND ROLLER IN THE BOAT JETTY . ERECTION OF BOAT JETTY ITSELF CAME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSES SEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 IN I.T.A. NOS.2293 AND 2294/MDS/2016. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ERECTED THE JETTY IN ENNORE PORT TRUST FOR TRANSPORT OF IRO N ORE. THE JETTY ERECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A TEMPORARY STRUCTU RE, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FO R DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 100%. THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT, IN FACT, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THIS 3 I.T.A. NO.1508/MDS/17 TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE JETTY ITSELF IS A TEMPORARY NAT URE AND ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEPRECIATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE COST OF REPLACEMENT OF CONVEYER BELT AND ROLLER IN THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE OF THE BOAT JETTY, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEAL S) HAS RIGHTLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND A LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 14A OF THE ACT. 6. WE HEARD MS. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI SP. PALANIAPPAN, THE LD. RE PRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND INCOM E FROM THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. THE CI T(APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COU RT IN CHEMINVEST LTD. V. CIT (2015) 61 TAXMANN.COM 118, F OUND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMPTED INCOME, THERE CANNOT BE ANY 4 I.T.A. NO.1508/MDS/17 DISALLOWANCE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT A SIMILAR VI EW WAS TAKEN BY MADRAS HIGH COURT IN REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. V. ADDL . CIT (2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 257. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMP TED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLO WANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2018 KRI. . ,167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 91 () /CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, CHENNAI 5. 7: ,1 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.