ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Bagmar Finance Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1930/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1176 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: P VALSALAN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH D : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO. 1930/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI VS M/S BAGHMAR FINANCE LTD NO.49 (OLD NO.41) ERULAPPAN STREET CHENNAI - 600049 [PAN AAACB3597Q] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. VALSALAN O R D E R PER DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007- 08, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)-III, AT CHENNAI, DATED 09.08. 2010. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS AP PEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON WINDMILL OF ` 3,87,06,802/-. ITA 1930/10 :- 2 -: 3. THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DATE D 23.4.2010, PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN I.T.A.NO. 1368/MDS/2009. BUT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND THE MATTER IS TAKEN UP BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE REVENUE IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN KEEPING ALIVE T HE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW IF IT IS NOT SATISFIED IN THE DECISION DELIVERED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. BUT AS ON DATE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER REVERSI NG THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS OF NOW, THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IS BINDING ON THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) AND IS BINDING ON THIS CO -ORDINATE BENCH, TOO. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON THURSDAY, THE 13 TH OF JANUARY, 2011, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT DATED: 13 TH JANUARY, 2011 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR