ACIT, Trichy V. M/s. R.K.Textiles, Karur

ITA 205/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61004 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.205/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ACIT CIRCLE II TRICHY VS M/S R.K.TEXTILES 292, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BHARATHI NAGAR, KARUR [PAN AAAFR6620H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 17-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-04-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A),TIRUCHIRAPALLI, DATED 16.11.2011. 2. THE REVENUE, IN THIS APPEAL, HAS TAKEN SIX GROUNDS AND THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE PROJECTED IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON CIVIL WORK AND ELECTRICAL ACCESSORIES OF THE WINDMILL AT THE RATE OF THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE FOR WINDMILL TREATING THE CIVIL WORK AND ELECTRICAL ACCESSORIES AS PART OF THE WINDMILL. I.T.A.NO. 205/12 :- 2 -: 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ALL FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.3.2008 SHOWING TOTAL LOSS OF ` 4,63,44,969/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 80% ON WINDMILL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOLLOWING HIS ORD ER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREIN HE HAD ESTIMATED THE COST OF C IVIL AND ELECTRICAL WORK AT 25% OF THE TOTAL COST AT ` 1,89,10,000/-. ON THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSE SSEE @ 5%. FOLLOWING THE SAME IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO HE ALLO WED DEPRECIATION AT ` 31,10,846/- AS AGAINST ` 2,02,83,663/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 IN I.T.A.NOS. 1701/MDS/2009, ORDER DATED 29.1.2010 AND I.T.A.NO. 334/MDS/2010, O RDER DATED 4.6.2010. 5. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE BUI LDING AT 80% OF I.T.A.NO. 205/12 :- 3 -: THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE WINDMILL. THUS, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 2,02,83,664/- IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHEREIN HE HAD ESTIMATED 25% OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE WINDMILL PERTAINING TO COST OF CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL WORK AND ESTIMATED SUCH AMOUNT AT ` 1,89,10,000/- ON WHICH HE HAD ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 5%, ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON COST OF CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL WORKS @ 5% IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO THEREBY RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSEE TO ` 31,10,846/- AS AGAINST ` 2,02,83,663/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL , THE LD.CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FOUNDATION WO RK AS WELL AS ELECTRIC WORK IS PART AND PARCEL OF WINDMILL PLANT AND DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED AT 80% AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). HE ALSO COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED I N ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE VARIED IN AP PEAL BY A HIGHER FORUM. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFYI NG REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IT IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. I.T.A.NO. 205/12 :- 4 -: 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-0 4-2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20 TH APRIL, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR