Income TAx Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore V. M/s Fibre & Fabrics International Pvt Ltd , Bangalore

ITA 2113/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5459 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KEERTHI NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2129 AND 2113/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11, 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), BENGALURU. VS. M/S. FIBER & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 21/E1, 2 ND PHASE INDL. AREA, PEENYA, BENGALURU 560 058. PAN : AAACF 6841 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : DR. P. V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDITIONAL CIT ASSESSEE BY : KEERTHI NARAYANAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.03.2018 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM : THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2012-13 ON COMMON GROUNDS WHICH ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO COGNIZANCE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE CHANGE IN STATUS AS A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO AVAIL THE BENEFITS OF DEPRECIATION. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RECOGNIZING THE ORGANIZED WORKFORCE AND EXPORT CONTRACTS AS COMMERCIAL RIGHTS. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DISCERNING THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER WHICH ARE DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSEES CASE. ITA NOS.2129 AND 2113/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2012-13. COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, NO INTERFERENCE IN HIS ORDER IS CALLED FOR. THE LEARNED DR SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS UNDER: 4. DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ITS OWN CASES FOR AY 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF CIT(A) FOR AY 2006-07 AND AY 2012-13. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE ITAT HAD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE ABOVE REFERRED GOODWILL. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. 4. SINCE THE FINDING OF TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED SO FAR, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.2129 AND 2113/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE. DATED: 14 TH MARCH, 2018. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. DR 4. CIT 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.