DCIT, Circle-13(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Trimurti Cargo Movers Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1867/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7759 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,...... .........APPELLANT CIRCLE-13(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, E.M. BY-PASS, 6 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 -VS.- M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED,........... .....................RESPONDENT MOUZA-JOYPURBILL, J.L. NO. 13, DAG NO. 2149, 2150, LILUAH, HOWRAH-711 227 [PAN: AABCT 2721 R] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SUBHAS AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 13, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 24, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KOLKATA ZONE) :- THESE TWO APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST A COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, KOLKATA DATED 06.06.2017 FOR A.YS. 2011-12 AND 2014-15 AND SINCE THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN IS COMMON, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 BEING ITA NO. 1866/KOL/2017, WHEREIN THE SOLITARY GROUND IS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS UNDER:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND GROSSLY ERRED IN CONSI DERING I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF RUNNIN G BUSINESS VEHICLES ON HIRE RATHER THAN USING THE MOT OR VEHICLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS OWN BUSINESS AND TH EREFORE, ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION DUE TO EXCESS DEPREC IATION CLAIMED TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,65,24,247/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LOGISTICS SOLUTION. THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 29.09.2 011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.32,61,685/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINAL LY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 25.03.2014, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.81,64,872/-. THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE BY THE L D. CIT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 26.03.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T BY TREATING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIAT ION AT A HIGHER RATE ON MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WITHOUT EXAMINING AS TO WHETHER THE SAID LORRIES WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RUNNING THE SAME ON HIRE. THE LD. CIT ACCORDINGLY D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER EXAMINI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/T RUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION. AS PER THE D IRECTION OF THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURN ISH THE DETAILS OF VEHICLES PURCHASED AND ALSO TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLA IM FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON SUCH VEHICLES BY ESTABLISHING THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE SAID VEHICLES ON HIRE. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, HOWEVER, WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING A RANGE OF LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIKE BULK MOVEMENT, DEDICATED CONTAINERIZ ED MOVEMENT, DOOR DELIVERY AND DOOR COLLECTION TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND S INCE THE MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS WERE USED BY IT FOR THE SAID BUSINES S RATHER THAN USING THE SAME IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE, THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION AT THE NORMAL RATE O F 15%. THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 3 OFFICER ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS AT 15% AND MADE A DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.1,65,24,247/- IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 30.12.2016. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/ TRUCKS AT HIGHER RATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 2. 1 TO 2.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 2.1. IN THE A.O.'S ORDER, IT IS SEEN, THAT NO REAS ON HAS BEEN GIVEN AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF HIGHER DEP RECIATION RATE WAS REJECTED. IN MY VIEW, THE QUESTION TO BE A NSWERED IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT 'WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING BUSINESS VEHICLES ON HIRE OR NOT. IN OTHER WORDS BE FORE REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OH HIGHER DEPRECIAT ION RATE THE A.O. HAS TO REACH THE SATISFACTION THAT THE APP ELLANT WAS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING ITS MOTOR LORRIES ON HIRE. THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O . HAS ONLY VAGUELY MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANTS WAS USING ITS OWN BUSINESS, FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OR PROVIDING LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS. THE A.O. HAS ONLY VAGUELY MENTI ONED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT USING VEHICLES IN BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. A LOOK AT THE RATE TABLE IN APPENDIX- I CLEARLY PRESCRIBES HIGHER RATES FOR VEHICLES USED IN THE BU SINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. A LOWER RATE OF 15% IS MADE A PPLICABLE ONLY IN BUSINESS OTHER THAN SUCH BUSINESS OF RUNNIN G ON HIRE. IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM BEFORE THE CIT U/S .263 AND BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT AND THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ME, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AP PELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING VEHICLES ON HIRE. THE VE HICLES ARE NOT BEING USED FOR BUSINESS OTHER THAN BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE 5 DEC ISIONS AS LISTED IN THE CIT'S ORDER U/S.263. THE SAID DECISIO NS ARE AS UNDER: I) ABC INDIA LTD. (226 ITR 914) GAUHATI II} BPL SANYO FINANCE (287 ITR 69) KARNATAKA III] BALAKRISHNA TRANSPORTS (233 ITR 133) KERALA I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 4 IV) GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM (305 ITR 132) SC (V) SARDAR STONES (215 ITR 350) RAJASTHAN 2.2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE JUDICIAL DECISIO NS. THESE DECISIONS ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT ENTITLING IT TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS ALLOWABLE IN T HE CASE OF RUNNING MOTOR LORRIES ON HIRE. IN ANY CASE, THE A.O . HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT USE ITS VEHICLES FILL RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. THE CIT'S ORDER TALKS OF VERI FICATION OF ASSETS ADDED AND RATE APPLIED. THERE IS NO DIRECTIO N TO THE A.O. FOR DENYING THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. T HE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT ON THE SAID LIMITE D ISSUES. THE A.O. HAS MECHANICALLY REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2.3. I SEE THAT THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS IS COVERED BY THE ABOVE DECISIONS. THE A.O.'S ACTION CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. THE APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS AT A HIGHER RA TE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER HAVING FOUND THAT THE S AME WERE NOT USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIR E BUT THE SAME WERE USED IN ITS OWN BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LOGISTICS SOL UTION. HE CONTENDED THAT A SPECIFIC FINDING THUS WAS RECORDED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR HIGHER DEPRECI ATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORR ECT TO OBSERVE THAT NO SUCH ADVERSE FINDING WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSPORTAT ION WAS ONLY A PART OF THE ASSESSEES MAIN BUSINESS OF PROVIDING A RANG E OF LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS AND SINCE THE MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID BUSINESS AND NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION WAS RIGHTLY DISALL OWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HO WEVER, DID NOT APPRECIATE THE BASIS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DISALLOWING THE I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 5 ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION AND ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH HIGHER DEPRECIATION BY RELYING ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WHICH ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OF A CARGO MOV ERS AND SINCE IT IS IN THE GAMUT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE MOTOR LORRIES/TRUC KS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. HE CONTENDED THAT THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS SQUARELY AP PLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THERE FORE, WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON THE SAME WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE A SSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/T RUCKS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER HAVING RECORDED A FI NDING THAT THE SAME WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR ITS OWN BUSIN ESS OF PROVIDING LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS AND NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNI NG THEM ON HIRE. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. D.R., THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION THUS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AFTER RECORDING A SPECIFIC ADVERSE FINDING AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CORRECT IN OBSERVING THAT NO SUCH ADVERSE FINDING WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THE DISALL OWANCE WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF VAGUE REASONS. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON THE SAME TO ALLOW T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS. FO R INSTANCE, IN THE CASE OF ABC INDIA LIMITED(226 ITR 914), GUWAHATI, THE AS SESSEE-COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS WITH THE HELP OF ITS OWN TRUCKS AS WELL AS HIRED TRUCKS OF OTHER PERSONS AND SINCE IT DID NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 6 OTHER THAN RUNNING THOSE VEHICLES FOR HIRE, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAVIN G USED THE MOTOR VEHICLES AND LORRIES FOR RUNNING THEM ON HIRE WAS E NTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION AT A HIGHER RATE. IN THE CASE OF BPL S ANYO FINANCE (P) LIMITED (287 ITR 69), THE ASSESESE-COMPANY HAD LEAS ED THE MOTOR VEHICLES TO ITS SISTER CONCERN TO FERRY BPL EMPLOYE ES FROM CITY TO FACTORY AND BACK TO THE RESIDENCE AND IN THESE FACTS OF THA T CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION SINCE THE VEHICLES WERE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE AND IT WAS IMMATER IAL AS TO WHETHER THE VEHICLES WERE HIRED TO ITS SISTER CONCERN OR TO A T HIRD PARTY OR TO A TOTAL STRANGER. 8. IN THE CASE OF GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM (P) LIMITED (SU PRA), THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORTING TI MBER LOGS AND SELLING THEM IN INDIA. DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR, IT PURCHASED TRAILERS AND LOADERS AND PUT THEM TO USE ON HIRE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT SINCE IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TIMBER AND IT WAS ONLY OCCASIONALLY THAT TRUCKS OWNED BY IT WERE GIVEN OUT ON HIRE TO OUTSIDE PARTIES, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM HIGHER RATE O F DEPRECIATION ON TRUCKS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE TRANSPORT INCOME BY WAY OF RUNNING SUBJECT VEHICLES ON HIRE WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE TR IBUNAL AFFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE MATTER W AS CARRIED FURTHER BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT MERE INCLUSION OF TRANSP ORTATION INCOME IN TOTAL BUSINESS INCOME WAS NOT A DETERMINATIVE FACTO R FOR DECIDING WHETHER TRUCKS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. IT WAS HELD THAT WHAT WAS RELEVANT FOR ALLOWANCE OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION WAS WHETHER THE AS SESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING OUT ITS TRUCKS IN ADDITION TO IT S BUSINESS OF TRADING IN I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 7 TIMBER AND SINCE NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD EXAMINED THE MATTER BY APPLYING THIS TEST, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BY T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- S.K. MYLSAMY GOUNDER (139 TAXMAN 408), SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND AFTER HAVI NG FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD PUT ANY MA TERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES OR FURTHER AUTHORITIES TO SHO W THAT HE HAD EARNED CERTAIN INCOME BY HIRING THE VEHICLES, THE MATTER W AS REMANDED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERING THE CLAIM FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION AFTER MAKING AN ENQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY EARNED ANY INCOME BY HIRING LORRIES. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO HAVE EXAMINED AS TO WHE THER THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING OUT ITS MOTOR LORRIES/TRU CKS IN ADDITION TO ITS BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS AND WHETHE R IT HAD ACTUALLY EARNED ANY INCOME BY HIRING THE SAID VEHICLES. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO S ET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING T HE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION. T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2 014-15 BEING ITA NO. 1867/KOL/2017, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 THEREOF RELATING TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR LORRIES/TRUCKS IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY US. SINCE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS TO THIS ISSUE AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 201 1-12, WE FOLLOW OUR I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 8 CONCLUSION DRAWN IN A.Y. 2011-12 AND RESTORE THIS I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE R EVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2014-15 IS THUS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND N O. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2014-15 RELATING TO THE R ELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.2,21,168/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D WAS RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY RELYING ON TH E DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LIMITED (ITA NO. 1 811/KOL/2012), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE APPLYING RULE 8D ONL Y THAT INVESTMENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHICH HAS YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE SAID DECISION OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LIMITED HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE CALCUTT A HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 IN ITAT NO. 161 OF 2013, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD DISMISSING GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A. Y. 2011-12 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHILE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2014-15 IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 24, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE -PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-13(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, E.M. BY-PASS, 6 TH FLOOR, I.T.A. NOS. 1866 & 1867/KOL/2017 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2011-2012 & 2014-2015 M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED 9 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 (2) M/S. TRIMURTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LIMITED, MOUZA-JOYPURBILL, J.L. NO. 13, DAG NO. 2149, 2150, LILUAH, HOWRAH-711 227 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, KOLKAT A, (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.