ACIT, CHENNAI V. Bharat Engineering Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1583/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 158321714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1583/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI VS. M/S BHARAT ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD NO.1-A, JHAVER PLAZA, 6 TH FLOOR NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 600 034 [PAN AACCB 8705 G ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 18 - 0 6 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 - 07 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNA I, DATED 25.2.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERVIC E OF NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE ITA NO.1583/14 :- 2 -: POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTIC E ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED 30% DEPRECIATION ON CENTERING AND SHUTTERIN G MATERIALS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR 30% DEPRECIATION, THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXCESS CLAIM. ACCOR DINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIAT ION TO 15%. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) FOU ND THAT CENTERING AND SHUTTERING MATERIALS ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE, T HEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 100%. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMI NG ONLY 30%, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. DR, CENTERING AND SHUTTERING MATERIALS CANNOT BE CONSTR UED AS TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AGR EED FOR DEPRECIATION @ 15%, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLA IM AT 30%. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE PROVIDED IN NEW APPENDIX I OF THE INCOME-T AX RULES, 1962 NEW APPENDIX I PART A (4) PROVIDES FOR 100% DEPREC IATION IN RESPECT OF PURELY TEMPORARY ERECTIONS SUCH AS WOODEN STRUCT URES. THE ITA NO.1583/14 :- 3 -: PURPOSE OF GIVING 100% DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF T EMPORARY STRUCTURES IS THAT ONCE IT WAS REMOVED IT CANNOT BE REUSED IN ANY MANNER. IN OLD DAYS THE CENTERING AND SHUTTERING M ATERIAL WERE MADE OUT OF WOODEN PANELS. WHEN IT IS USED FOR CENTERIN G, IT MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. NOWADAYS, THE TECHNOLOGY HAS DEVELOPED AND STEEL PLATES ARE USED FOR CENTERING AND SHUTTERING. THEREFORE, NOW IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CENTERING AND SHUTTERING MA TERIAL ARE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS USING WOODEN PANELS OR STEEL PANEL S AS CENTERING AND SHUTTERING MATERIALS. IF IT IS TEMPORARY STRUCTURE , THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE CLAIMED 100% DEPRECIATION. IN FACT, THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED ONLY 30% DEPRECIATION. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUG HT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE ASS ESSEE CONSIDERED TO WITHDRAW THE EXCESS CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THIS CONCESS ION TO WITHDRAW THE EXCESS CLAIM, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E AT 30%. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AGREED TO WITHDRAW THE EXCESS CLAIM AND AGREED FOR DEPRECIATION AT 15%, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE C ONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED . ITA NO.1583/14 :- 4 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD OF JULY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 03 RD JULY, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF