DCIT, CHENNAI V. Kamarajar Port Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 1549/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8712 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V NANDA KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1549/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(2), CHENNAI-34. VS M/S. KAMARAJAR PORT LTD., 23, P.T.LEE CHENGALVARAYA NAICKER MALIGAI, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001. PAN:AAACE9013G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. V.NANDA KUMAR, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 16 TH AUGUST,2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 8, CHENNAI DATED 29.02.2016 IN ITA NO.101/2008-09 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE / RESPONDENT, DESPITE NOTICE SERVED TO TH E ASSESSEE . SINCE THE ISSUE IS ALREADY DECIDED BY TH IS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2002-03 & 2003-04 IN ITA NO.1681 & 1682/MDS/20 11 2 ITA NO.1549 /MDS/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2011, WE HEREBY PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS, AFTER HEARING THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSING THE RECORD S. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF ` 27,52,856/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PORT CREATION CHARGES. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS A GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME ON 26.10.2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 DECLARING NIL INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FI LED REVISED RETURN ON 29.03.2007 ADMITTING NIL INCOME. IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 25% AMOUNTING TO RS.27,52,856/- TOWA RDS EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PORT CREATION. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER O RDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPEND ITURE RELATED TO PORT CREATION CHARGES IS NOT A FIXED TAN GIBLE ASSET OF ENDURING BENEFIT. 3 ITA NO.1549 /MDS/2016 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.1681 & 1682/MDS/2010 DATED 29.11.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003- 04 DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF ` 27,52,856/- , AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER AND PRAYED FOR THE SAME TO BE SUSTAINED. 7. ON HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-04 IN ITA NOS.1681 & 1682/MDS/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11 .2011 AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ONLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED AB OVE. FURTHER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TH OUGH RELIED IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R COULD NOT 4 ITA NO.1549 /MDS/2016 CONTROVERT TO THE FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA. THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 22 ND AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 22 ND AUGUST, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /