Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0134 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-06-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
F
Next Hearing Date
24-06-2015
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
18-03-2013
Judgement Text
ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS M/S PAL S TONE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., HALDWANI, DISTT. NAINITAL, BAREILLY ROAD, HALDWANI, UTTARAKHAND-263139 HALDWANI. (PAN NO.AAACP9030C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDE NT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIVEK WADEKAR, CIT (DR) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAHUL KHARE, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 24.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN DATED 14.01.2013 IN APPEAL NO.1 40/HLD/2007-08 FOR AY 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CITCA)-I1 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 45,18,755/- ON ACCOUNT OF PA YMENT OF ROYALTY TO GOVT. AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,21 ,163/- WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN TH E EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION AND LABOR CHARGES FOR OBTAINING ILLEGAL STOCK WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO GOVT. HAS NO RELATION WITH THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION AND LABOUR CHARGES. ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) -II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS. RS. 86,348/- WITHOUT C ONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWABLE MERE LY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE VEHICLE DURING THE YE AR BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS FOR AVAILI NG THE DEPRECIATION. GROUND NO. 1 2. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON R ECORD. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT G BENCH DELHI IN ITA NO. 4355/DEL/2009 FOR AY 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF MS/ SWA STIK STONE ENTERPRISES AND SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1, HAVING SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. LD. DR AFTER PERUSING THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR A FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER EXAMINATION OF APPELLATE ORDERS OF DISTRICT M AGISTRATE, NAINITAL ON THE ISSUE. 3. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, F ROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION:- ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 3 7.2 THE AVERMENTS OF LD. ARS AND THE FINDING OF LD . AO HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE LD. ARS HAVE ALSO FI LED SOME DOCUMENTS FROM WHICH THE LD. AO HAS ARRIVED AT THE IMPUGNED FIGURES OF ADDITIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS REVEAL THAT THE DISTRICT AUTHORITIES HAVE WORKED OUT THE QUANTUM OF ILLEGAL MINING ON THE BASIS OF THEIR OWN SURVEY. UNDOUBTEDLY THIS MATTER HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY AND IS STILL SUB JUDICE, HOWEVER, THE LD. AO WAS RIGHT IN RELYING UPON HE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT AU THORITIES IN ESTIMATING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. TO THIS EXTENT T HE LD. AO'S ACTION IS WORTH SUPPORTING IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, T HE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF ALLOWING EXPENSES AGAINST THIS DEEMED INCO ME HAS CONSIDERABLE FORCE SINCE THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY WOU LD GO HAND IN HAND WITH ANY ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM ILLEGALLY M INED STOCK. SINCE THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE SAME SET OF DOC UMENTS FROM WHICH THE LD. AO HAS WORKED OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INV ESTMENT, IT WOULD BE ONLY FAIR TO ALLOW RELIEF OF RS.45,18,755/ - AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THUS THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF O F RS.45,18,755/- FROM THE ADDITION OF RS.48,21,163/-. 4. ON VIGILANT READING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SWASTIK STONE ENTERPRISES (SUPRA), WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE S IMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION AND LABOUR CHARGES FOR OBTAINING ILLEGAL STOCK WAS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR A FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPELLATE ORDE RS OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAINITAL ON THIS ISSUE. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PAR T OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.1.2013 READS AS UNDER:- 3. IN THIS CASE IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SURVEY WAS C ONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT/P WD AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF UTTARAKHAND. SUBSEQUENTLY, TH E JOINT ENQUIRY COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF OFFICIALS OF FOREST DEPARTMENT, PWD AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT ALSO SURVEYED THE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR VERIFICATION OF THE STOCK. ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS AS A RESULT OF SURVEY, D.M., NAINITAL HAS PASSED AN ORDER DATED 19.3.2005, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 4 COMPANY HAS ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF 10,715 CUBIC METERS OF STONE GRITS FOR WHICH COMPOUNDING FEES OF RS.28,21, 615/- HAVE BEEN LEVIED. BASED ON THESE FINDINGS OF DM, NAINITA L, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF STONE GRITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.28,00,472/- AND BY AP PLYING THE RATE OF PROFIT AT 38%, SUCH PROFIT OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSE D SALE HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS.10,64,179/-. IN ADDITION, THE CAPITA L EMPLOYED FOR RUNNING SUCH BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS HAS BEEN ES TIMATED AT RS.50,000/- AND AS A RESULT AN AGGREGATE ADDITION O F RS.11,14,179/- HAS BEEN MADE. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (A) NOTED THAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE ALSO RAISED BEFORE T HE DM, NAINITAL WHO AFTER HAVING REGARD TO THE ENTIRE FACT S OF THE CASE HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DETERMINING THE ILLEGAL TRANSPORT OF GOODS I.E. MINOR MINERALS TO THE TUNE OF 10,715/- C UBIC METERS FOR WHICH COMPOUNDING FEES OF RS.28,21,615/- WAS LEVIED . LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT THE AGAIN ST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE DM, NAINITAL, ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAINITAL, WHICH IS STILL SUBJUDICE BEFORE HIM. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT THE AS OF NOW, SINCE TH E DMS ORDER INDICATES THE CONCLUSIVE FINDING OF FACT, HE WAS NO T IN A POSITION TO MAKE A DEPARTURE FROM THE SAME BECAUSE NO FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED WHICH CAN CAUSE ANY INTERFERENCE TOWAR DS THE ORDER OF DM. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- SINCE THE FOREST DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND THE JOIN T ENQUIRY COMMITTEE WERE THE EXPERTS TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION, THE REPORT OF SUCH AUTHORITIES CANN OT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. FURTHER, DM, NAINITAL, BEING COMPETENT OFFIC ER TO EVALUATION SUCH REPORTS, I HAVE NO OTHER FRESH MATE RIALS TO DIFFER FROM THE FINDING OF SUCH AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS THE UNDISCLOS ED PROFIT AND CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 11,14,179/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTAN CES IN THIS ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 5 TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 419/DEL/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-0 6 OF M/S KRISHNA STORE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT VIDE OR DER DATED 23.12.2009 HAS REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, HE PRAYED THAT ACCORDINGLY, THIS MA TTER SHOULD ALSO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, RELI ED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE IN THE CASE O F M/S KRISHNA STORE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) THE TRI BUNAL HAD ADJUDICATED THE MATTER AS UNDER:- 4. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED I N THE MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF STONE GRITS. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT AO NOTED THAT A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE FOREST DEPA RTMENT, PWD AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FO UND DURING THE SURVEY DM, NAINITAL PASSED A ORDER ON 19.3.2005 HOLDING THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASESSEE HAS DONE ILLEGAL T RANSPORTATION (MADE UNDISCLOSED SALE) OF 10032.07 CUBIC METER OF MINERAL. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE DM, NAINITAL THAT DURING THE Y EAR ASSESSEE WAS FOUND HAVING ILLEGAL STORAGE OF 5045.93 CUBIC M ETER OF STONE WHICH WAS BROUGHT FROM GOLA RIVER. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THE DM, NAINITAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19.3.2005 IMPOSED COM POUNDING FEE OF RS. 5,04,363/- ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEGAL STORAGE OF MINERAL OF 5045.93 CUBIC METER. THEN DM, NAINITAL FURTHER IMPO SED COMPOUNDING FEE OF RS. 26,43,371/- ON ACCOUNT OF IL LEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF 10032.07 CUBIC METRES OF MINERALS . AO FURTHER NOTED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS WHICH A RE SIMILAR TO THE OBJECTIONS MADE BEFORE HIM, THE DM, NAINITAL RE JECTED THE PETITION AND CONFIRMED THE AMOUNT IMPOSED UPON ASSE SSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PETITION BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAINITAL WHERE THE MATTER IS STILL PE NDING FOR CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD, AO HELD THAT SINCE T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DM, NAINITAL AND THE DM, NAINITAL AFTER CONSIDERING ALL ITS OBJECTIONS HAS H ELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ILLEGAL EXCESS STOCK AND HAD ILLEGALLY T RANSPORTED MINERALS. AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEGAL ST OCK AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,39,418/- AND ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEG AL TRANSPORTATION (UNDISCLOSED SALES) AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,06,268/-. 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND CONCLUDED THAT AS OF NOW, SINCE THE DMS ORDER INDICATES THE ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 6 CONCLUSIVE FINDING OF THE FACT, HE WAS NOT IN A POS ITION TO MAKE ANY DEPARTURE FROM THE SAME. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT DM, NAINITAL BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE SUCH REPO RTS, HE HAD NO MATERIAL TO DIFFER THE FINDING OF SUCH AUTHORITY. A CCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ON THE SAME ANALOGY HE CONF IRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,06,268/- ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEGAL TR ANSPORTATION (UNDISCLOSED SALES). 6. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE DECISION OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS SOLELY MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE DM, NA INITAL AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SAID TO BE A MATTER OF ADJUDICATION P ENDING BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAINITAL. BOTH THE AUT HORITIES HAD TOTALLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE DM, NAINITAL. SINCE THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, NAINIT AL, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE. 7.1 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH AFTER EXAMINI NG THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NA INITAL ON THIS ISSUE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6.2 A READING OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ADJUDICATED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE MATTER FOR A DJUDICATION IS PENDING BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAINITA L. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TOTALLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF T HE DM, NAINITAL. SINCE THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE DM, NAINITAL, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE. ACC ORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENT, WE REMI T THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE S AME AFRESH, AFTER EXAMINING THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF DM, NAINITAL ON T HIS ISSUE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO CO NSIDER THE SAME AFRESH AFTER ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 7 EXAMINING AND CONSIDERING THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF T HE HIGHER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE AO SHALL ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH WITHOUT BEING PRE JUDICED WITH THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO.2 6. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS. RS. 86,348/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DEPRECIATION CANNOT B E ALLOWABLE MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE VEHICLE DURING THE YE AR BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS FOR AVAILING THE DEPRECIATI ON. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT( A), HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS OPERATIVE PART PARA 5 AND 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSE T WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THEN IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT IT WAS PUT TO USE AND READY FOR USE IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS SET UP AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT( A) WAS CORRECT IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERA TION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION:- ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 8 5.0 THE FOURTH GROUND CHALLENGES THE ADDITION OF RS.1,46,098/-. THE LD. ARS HAVE CHALLENGED ONLY THE ADDITION OF RS.86,348/- MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONCERNED V EHICLE WAS PURCHASED FROM LUCKNOW ON THE LAST DAY OF THE CONCE RNED FINANCIAL YEAR AND SINCE THE ASSESEE HAD NO BUSINES S AT LUCKNOW THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED WAS DISALLOWED. 5.1 THE LD. ARS HAVE AVERRED THAT LUCKNOW BEING THE STATE CAPITAL THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE LIAISON THAT HAD TO BE DONE THERE. HOWEVER, WHILE THIS ASSERTION MAY NOT BE RELEVANT S INCE IN THE CONCERNED ASSTT. YEAR THE STATE CAPITAL WAS DEHRADU N, IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSET CAME IN POSSESSION OF TH E APPELLANT WITHIN THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND WAS THUS AVAILABLE FO R USE IN HIS BUSINESS. ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSET WAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT IT W AS READY FOR USE IN THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS AND WOULD THUS MERI T CHARGING DEPRECIATION ON. IN VIEW OF THIS THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.86,348/- FROM THE TOTAL ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT . 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSET WAS UND ISPUTEDLY PURCHASED AND CAME IN THE POSSESSION OF ASSESSEE WITHIN THE FINAN CIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE AND IN THIS SITUATION, IT CAN SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS PUT TO USE AND READY FOR USE IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AND HENCE, CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIAT ION AND HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1587/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 9 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.06.2015. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 30TH JUNE 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR
