Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 6, , Pune V. Suma Shilp Ltd, Pune

ITA 1758/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5791 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80IA; 113; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . / I TA NO.1758 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 6, PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. SUMA SHILP LTD. 93/5A, ERANDWAN E , PUNE - 411 004. PAN: AACCS4724N / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P WALIMBE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DATE OF HEARING : 30 .0 9 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .10 .2020 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 4, PUNE DATED 01.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,77,45,946/ - AS CLAIMED OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(IV)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,84,391/ - BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 3. FOR THIS AND SUCH OTHER REASONS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 2. GROUND NO.1 PERTAINS TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA(IV)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A DEDUC TION OF RS.1,77,45,946/ - U/S.80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 13.03.2015 AND THE SAME IS SCANNED ON PAGE 2 IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AND ADDED THE AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS CON TENDED BY THE LD. AR DRAWING HIS ATTENTION TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1/201 6 DATED 15.02.2016 WHEREIN THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE TERM INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN SECTION 80IA (5) OF THE ACT WOULD MEAN THE FIRST YEAR OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS HAS COMMENCED. FURTHER, THE CBDT CIRCULAR DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80IA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CLARIFICATION AND ALSO STATED THAT PENDING LITIGATION ON ALLOWABILITY OF 3 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 DEDUCTION U/S.80IA SHALL NOT BE PURSUED TO THE EXTENT IT REL ATES TO INTERPRETING INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND NOT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AS INTER PRETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5.3 DECISION: - I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS ABOVE CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT THE 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS PRESCRIBED U/S.80IA (5) HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1/2016 DATED 15/02/2016 WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN STATE D THAT THE SAME WOULD MEAN THE FIRST YEAR OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS HAS COMMENCED. FURTHER, THE CBDT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THIS CLARIFICATION AND ALSO STATED THAT PENDING LITIGATION ON ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA SHALL NOT PURSUED TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES TO INTERPRETING 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 80IA(5). I ALSO FIND THAT VARIOUS CASE LAW S CITED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 16/02/2017 HAVE ALSO DECIDED AND SET RIGHT THE ISSUE OF 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS PROVIDED IN THE SAID SECTION, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' IN THE C ASE OF THE APPELLANT WOULD BE A.Y. 2010 - 11 THOUGH THE BUSINESS WAS COMMENCED EARLIER AS THE APPELLANT HAD OPTED TO SELECT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT ONLY FROM THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN APPELLANT'S CLAIM IN P URSUANCE TO THE CBDT'S CIRCULAR AS ABOVE AND ALSO OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE APPELLANT. I DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS A.Y. 2010 - 11 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA. THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,77,45,946/ - ( WRONGLY WRITTEN BY THE AO IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AT RS.17,70,45,946/ - ) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.80IA(4)(IV)(A) IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY DELETED. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2011 - 12 WHERE THIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD . CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 IN ITA NO.1036/PUN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 4 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 2011 - 12 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 9. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE CITED DECISIONS BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIN D THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RELEVANT FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITION: ASSESSEE HAVING CHOSEN A.Y. 2004 - 05 AS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND PAID TAXES ON THE PROFITS OF ITS WINDMILL ACTIVITY IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS PER THE STATUTE, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE STARTED GENERATING ELECTRICITY (A.Y. 2002 - 02) CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 80IA(2) R.W.S. 80IA(5); INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE ABOVE PURPOSES IS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDU CTION U/S.80IA(1) AFTER EXERCISING THE OPTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IA(2) 10. THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS APPROVED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THE CI T(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE SAID DECISION (SUPRA). IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE EXISTING LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ASSESSEE SHALL B E GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THE PROCESS, WE FIND THERE IS NO REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOSSES OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO A.Y. 2010 - 11 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE OTHER INCOME OF THE INELIGIBLE UNITS OF THE EARLIER YEARS. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SAID SET OFF OF THE SAID BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AGAINST THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE WINDMILL S OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1.1 TO 1.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED, IN PRINCIPLE, SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. THEREFORE, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ALSO, IT WAS HELD THAT THE INIT IAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IA IS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION. 5.1 THE LD. AR PLACING STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND NOT FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 AND THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE INITIAL 5 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 ASSESSMEN T YEAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT IS THE CORRECT PROPOSITION OF LAW. 5.2 THE LD. AR FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1/2016 DATED 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2016, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ANNEXED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE RELEVANT PARA IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BOARD. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM SUB SECTION (2) THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.80IA HAS THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THE INITIAL/FIRST YEAR FROM WHICH IT MAY DESIRE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS, OUT OF A SLAB OF FIFTEEN (OR TWENTY) YEARS, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT SUB SECTION. IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THA T ONCE SUCH INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.80IA FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS BEGGING FROM THE YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE HAS EXERCISED SUCH OPTION SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIO NS PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION. HENCE, THE TERM INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD MEAN THE FIRST OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSMENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA. FROM THE ABOVE CIRCULAR ALSO , IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTI ON U/S.80IA HAS THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THE INITIAL/FIRST YEAR FROM WHICH IT MAY DESIRE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 5.3 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO DEDUCTION HAVE BEEN CLAIMED U/S.80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF A SSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 AND THAT THE DECI SION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR IN THE CASE OF GOLDMINE SHARES AND FINANCE PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 113 ITR 209 W AS MUCH PRIOR TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA.). 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HAS PLACED STRONG R ELIANCE ON THE FINDING S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLDMINE SHARES AND FINANCE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA.) 6 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE HAVE ALSO ANALYZED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. IN THIS CASE, THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER HOLDING THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHICH IS THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE WINDMILL COMMENCED GENERATION OF POWER. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND HAD SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDU CTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 AND IT WAS ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 THAT THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y.2011 - 12, HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FIRST TIME THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. 7.1 WE ALSO FIND TH AT THE CBDT CIRCULAR ITSELF, GIVES PREFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE A PARTICULAR YEAR AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FORTIFIED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA.), THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA.) AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, THE RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS BASED ON THE BOARD S CIRCULAR AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ANALYZED THE ISSUE CORRECTLY. T HAT FURTHER T HE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLDMINE SHARES AND FINANCE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA.) WAS MUCH PRIOR 7 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR. THUS, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS , THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,84,391/ - BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 9. THE CONTENTION RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS GROUND, IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS.9,84,391/ - BEING PRIOR PERIOD DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT IN PREMISES. HE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.9,84,391/ - WAS GROUPED IN BOOK DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,30,66,886/ - IN NOTE NO.24 OF THE AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.5,30,66,886/ - WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT, THE COPY OF THE AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2012, TAX AUDIT REPORT REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FILED SEPARATELY AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDED BACK T HE ENTIRE BOOK DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,30,66,886/ - I.E. INCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT IN PREMISES FOR PRIOR PERIOD IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. 11. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE HAS HELD A S FOLLOWS: 7.3 DECISION : - I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS ABOVE CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WRONGLY MADE BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THE SIDE AMOUNT OF RS.9,84,391/ - BEING DEPRECIATION O N INVESTMENT IN PREMISES FOR PRIOR PERIOD WAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN BOOK DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,30,66,886/ - REFLECTED IN NOTE NO.24 OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTIRE BOOK DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,30,66,886/ - ( I.E. INCLUDING THE AFORESAID DEPRECIATION ON INVE STMENT IN PREMISES FOR PRIOR PERIOD) WAS ADDED BACK 8 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 AND DISALLOWED IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/2012, TAX AUDIT REPORT REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME SEPARATELY CONTENDING THAT THE APPELLAN T COMPANY HAD ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE BOOK DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,30,66,886/ - (I.E. INCLUDING THE AFORESAID DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENTS IN PREMISES FOR PRIOR PERIOD) IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE WAS WA RRANTED AND SUCH AN ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE. I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND AS THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED IN BOOK DEPRECIATION AND DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT, NO FURTHER DIS ALLOWANCE WAS REQUIRED. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENTS IN PREMISES FOR PRIOR PERIOD O F RS.9,84,391/ - IS HEREBY DELETED. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 12. WE HAVE PER USED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ITSELF, IT HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ENTIRE BOOK DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,30,66,886/ - , IT INCLUDED DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT IN PREMISES FOR PRIOR PERIOD AND ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TAX AUDIT REPORT WERE SUBMITTED AND WERE ANALYZED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE BALANCE SHEET AND P & L ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN THE ENTIRE DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION EXPENSES HAS BEEN CLAIMED AT RS.5,30,66,886/ - AND IT INCLUDED PRIOR PERIOD DEPRECATION ON INVESTMENT IN PREMISES. 12. 1 THE LD. DR COULD NOT REFUTE THESE FACT S ON RECORD NOR COULD BRING ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.9,84,391/ - WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SAID TOTAL DEPRECIATION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR TAXATION PURPOSE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY 9 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 SUSTAINED. THUS, GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO.3 AND 4 ARE GENERA L IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 01 ST DAY OF OCTOB ER, 20 20 . SD/ - SD/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 01 ST OCTOBER , 2020. SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 4, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT - 3, PUNE. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE C O PY // / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 10 ITA NO. 1758 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 30 .0 9 .2020 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR O1.10 .2020 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER