DCIT, Madurai V. M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalayam

ITA 2143/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4128 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SURESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V JAGADISAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 M/S. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LTD., 47, P.S.K. NAGAR, RAJAPALAYAM V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIRUDHUNAGAR RANGE, VIRUDHUNAGAR. PAN: AAACR5284J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ./ ITA NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIRUDHUNAGAR RANGE, VIRUDHUNAGAR. V. M/S. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LTD., 47, P.S.K. NAGAR, RAJAPALAYAM PAN: AAACR5284J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. JAGADISAN, CA / REVENUE BY : SHRI S. SURESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 02.05.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.07.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME 2 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI, ALL DATED 04.04.2016 IN I TA NO.0037/2015-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PAS SED U/S.250 (6) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, ITA NO.0177/2 015-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ITA NO.176/2015-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 26 3, 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER THEY ARE BRIEF LY STATED HEREIN BELOW FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1875 OF 2016, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 : (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S.14A R.W.R 8D FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,56,515/-. (SINCE THE LD.AR HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED.) (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED DEPRECIATION AT 100% ON THE COST OF PULPER STIRRER AMOUNTING TO RS.61,800/- (ARAKKONAM FACTORY) CLAIMED UNDER RULE 6 ITEM 3 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 NO.3(VIII)(B) OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY DUS T COLLECTOR SYSTEM. (III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED DEPRECIATION AT 100% ON THE COST OF VACUUM CLEANER AMOUNTING TO RS.19,380/- (KARAGPUR UNIT) CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)B OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. (IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED DEPRECIATION AT 100% ON THE COST OF MICROYARN CLEANER AMOUNTING TO RS.16,76,69 0/- (AT SPINNING UNIT) - CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)B OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. (V) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED DEPRECIATION AT 80% ON THE COS T OF ENERGY SAVING DEVICES-INVERTER AMOUNTING TO RS.12,77,910/-(AT SPINNING UNIT) CLAIMED UNDER RUL E 6 PLANT & MACHINERY ITEM 8 (IX)E(B) AUTOMATIC POWER CUT OFF DEVICE (RELAYS) MOUNTED ON INDIVIDUAL MOTOR. 4 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 4. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.2143 OF 2016, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REF UND OF SALES TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.5,79,39,673/- IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM TAX DISREGARDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD REPORTED IN 228 ITR 253 (SC) AND 152 ITR 39 (AP HIGH COURT). (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LD.AO TO ALLOW 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS AGAINST 15% / 7.5% ALLOWED BY THE LD.AO:- 1. CLARIFIER BIT 2. DUST COLLECTOR 3. WASTE DESOLVER 4. PULVERISER MACHINE 5. DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM 6. MICRO DUST COLLECTOR 5. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1876 OF 2016, ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.R 8D FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,53,64,094/-. (SINCE THE LD.AR HAS NOT PRESSED 5 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 THIS GROUND, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED.) (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF FLY ASH SILO AMOUNTING TO RS.24,85,384 /- (VIJAYAWADA UNIT) CLAIMED UNDER RULE 5 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(E) ASH HANDLING SYSTEM AND EVACUATION SYSTEM. (III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF CEMENT BLOWER AMOUNTING TO RS.1,16,655 /- (BHUJ UNIT) CLAIMED UNDER RULE 5 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(E ) ASH HANDLING SYSTEM AND EVACUATION SYSTEM. (IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF CENTRIFUGAL FAN AMOUNTING TO RS.7,32,5 13/- (AT SPINNING MILLS) CLAIMED UNDER RULE 5 PART II I- ITEM NO.8(XIII)(E) AIR / GAS / FLUID HEATING SYST EM. 6. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.2144 OF 2016, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 6 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE FUND OF SALES TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.5,40,36,767/- IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM TAX DISREGARDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD REPORTED IN 228 ITR 253 (SC) AND 152 ITR 39 (AP HIGH COURT). (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LD.AO TO ALLOW 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS AGAINST 15% / 7.5% ALLOWED BY THE LD.AO:- 1. WATER TANK CLARIFIER 2. SEWAGE PLANT 3. CHIMNEYS PIPELINE FOR DUST COLLECTOR 4. DUST COLLECTOR 7. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1877 OF 2016, ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12 (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S.14A R.W.R 8D FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,01,30,836/-. (SINCE THE LD.AR HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED.) (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF VACUUM CLEANER AMOUNTING TO RS.44,203/ - 7 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 (IBRAHIM PATTINAM), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)C OF PART III - DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. (III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF VACUUM CLEANER AMOUNTING TO RS.35,500/ - (BHUJ UNIT), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VII I)C OF PART III - DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. (IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF BIOMASS GASFIER AMOUNTING TO RS.8,14,988/-(AT KARUR), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 I TEM NO.3(VIII)C OF PART III - DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. (V) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF VACUUM PUMP AMOUNTING TO RS.47,464/-(A T KARUR), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(E) OF PART III ASH HANDLING SYSTEM AND EVACUATION SYSTE M. (VI) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF FLY ASH SILO AMOUNTING TO RS.59,54,690 /- (AT GANGAI KONDAN), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM 8 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 NO.3(VIII)(E) OF PART III ASH HANDLING SYSTEM AND EVACUATION SYSTEM. (VII) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF CAPACITOR DUTY CONTRACTOR AMOUNTING TO RS.22,482/-(AT GANGAI KONDAN), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.8(IX)(B)(A) OF PART III AUTOMATIC ELECTRICAL LOAD MONITORING SYSTEM. (VIII) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE OR DER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF TRAVELLING CLEANER AMOUNTING TO RS.1,02,492/-(AT RAJAPALAYAM SPINNING MILL), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)C OF PART III - DU ST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. (IX) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF WASTE COTTON COLLECTION AMOUNTING TO RS.3,77,518/-(AT RAJAPALAYAM SPINNING MILL), CLAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)C OF PART III - DU ST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. 9 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 (X) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF ENERGY EFFICIENT CENTRIFUGAL FAN AMOUN TING TO RS.5,91,960/-(AT RAJAPALAYAM SPINNING MILLS), C LAIM MADE UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.8(XIII)(E) OF PART III AIR / GAS FLUID HEATING SYSTEMS. (XI) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD DENIED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF HUMICAN CONTROL SYSTEM AMOUNTING TO RS.35,225/-(AT RAJAPALAYAM MILLS), CLAIM MADE UNDE R RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)C OF PART III - DUST COLLECTO R SYSTEMS. 8. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.2145 OF 2016, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 (III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REFUND OF SALES TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.6,19,69,482/- IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM TAX DISREGARDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD REPORTED IN 228 ITR 253 (SC) AND 152 ITR 39 (AP HIGH COURT). 10 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 (IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LD.AO TO ALLOW 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS AGAINST 15% / 7.5% ALLOWED BY THE LD.AO:- 1. DUST COLLECTOR 2. CHIMNEY WORK 3. BIOMASS GASIFIER FOR HEATING CHAMBER 4. AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE STABILIZER 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AN D SELLING FIBER CEMENT CEMENTS, ACCESSORIES, CALCIUM SILICATE BOARDS, COTTON YARN, GENERATION OF POWER ETC., FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS AND ON APP EAL THE LD.CIT(A) GAVE SOME PART RELIEF AND CONFIRMED CERTA IN OTHER ADDITIONS. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 AND 2011-12, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE LD.AO U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, SUBSEQUENT TO THE INTERVENTION OF THE LD.CIT U/S. 2 63 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS WHICH WAS PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS O F THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 11 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 10 . ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1875 OF 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 : A) GROUND NO. 3(II) - PULPER STIRRER AT ARAKONAM CSB :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 100% DEPRECIATION ON PULPER ST IRRER AT ARAKONAM CSB UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(B) OF PAR T III - PLANT & MACHINERY DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE LD.A O DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION STATING THAT THE ASSET DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSET MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF I TEMS GIVEN IN NEW APPENDIX I OF DEPRECIATION TABLE. THEREFORE THE L D.AO HAD GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE BALAN CE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE PULPER STIRRER HELPS TO S TIR THE WASTE PULP CONSTANTLY AND KEEP THE RAW MATERIAL WITHOUT SETTIN G. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACCORD INGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, WHEREIN DEPRECIAT ION OF 15% IS ALLOWED. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. 100% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO AIR POL LUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BEING DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS AS PER THE R ATE OF 12 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PAR T A-III- MACHINERY AND PLANT 8 (VIII)(C). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, PULP STIRRER MACHINE IS NOT AIR POLLUTION CONTROL E QUIPMENT. IT IS MACHINERY USED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVEN UE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSAR Y TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. B) GROUND NO. 3(III) VACUUM CLEANER AT KHARAGPUR UNIT :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 100% DEPRECIATION ON VACUU M CLEANER AT KHARAGPUR UNIT UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(B) O F PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE L D.AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION STATING T HAT THE ASSET DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSET MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF ITEMS GIVEN IN NEW APPENDIX I OF DEPRECIATION TABLE. THEREFORE T HE LD.AO HAD GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE BALAN CE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT IT IS A NORMAL VACUUM CLEANER USED IN THE FACTORY ONLY FOR CLEANING THE PREMISES AND NOT FOR AVOIDING AIR POLLUTION BY INSTALLING DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. THE REFORE, IT CANNOT 13 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 BE TREATED AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY H E CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, WHEREIN DEPRECIATION OF 15% IS ALLOWED. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. 100% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO AIR POL LUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BEING DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS AS PER THE R ATE OF DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PAR T A-III- MACHINERY AND PLANT 3 (VIII)(C). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, VACUUM CLEANER IS NOT AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPME NT. IT IS A MACHINERY USED FOR CLEANING THE PREMISES OF THE ASS ESSEE AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION A LLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS IS SUE. C) GROUND NO. 3(IV) MICRO YARN CLEANER AT SPINNIN G UNIT :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 100% DEPRECIATION ON MIRCR O YARN CLEANER AT SPINNING UNIT UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VII I)(B) OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION ST ATING THAT THE ASSET DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSET MENTIONED IN TH E LIST OF ITEMS GIVEN IN NEW APPENDIX I OF DEPRECIATION TABLE. TH EREFORE THE 14 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 LD.AO HAD GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.C IT(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THIS MACHIN E IS USED ONLY TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF YARN BY REMOVING PROJECTIONS IN THE YARN BY ELECTRONICALLY CONTROL METHOD AND THE WASTE GENERAT ED AND COLLECTED IS ONLY DUMPED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. THE REFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL UNIT BEI NG DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, WHEREIN DEPRECIATION OF 15% IS ALLOWED. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. 100% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO AIR POL LUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BEING DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS AS PER THE R ATE OF DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PAR T A-III- MACHINERY AND PLANT 3 (VIII)(C). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, MICRO YARN CLEANER IS NOT AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQU IPMENT. IT IS A MACHINERY USED TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF YARN IN TH E MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIA TE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. 15 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 D) GROUND NO. 3(V) INVERTER AT SPINNING UNIT :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 80% DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY SAVING DEVIC ES - INVERTER AT SPINNING UNIT UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.8(IX)E(B) OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY AUTOMATIC POWER CUT OFF DEVICES (RELAYS ) MOUNTED ON INDIVIDUAL MOTOR. HOWEVER THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM OF 80% DEPRECIATION STATING THAT THE ASSET DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSET MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF ITEMS GIVEN IN NEW A PPENDIX I OF DEPRECIATION TABLE. THEREFORE THE LD.AO HAD GRANT ED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT FROM THE BILLS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE M ACHINE IS ONLY INVERTER AND CONTROLLER AND NOT AUTOMATIC POWER CUT OFF DEVICE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AUTOMATIC POWER CUT OFF DEVICE. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, WH EREIN DEPRECIATION OF 15% IS ALLOWED. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. 80% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO AUTOMATI C POWER CUT- OFF DEVICES AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION PRESCRI BED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III- MACHINERY AND PLANT 8(I X)E(B). IN THE 16 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, INVERTER / CONTROLLER CANNOT BE HELD AS AUTOMATIC POWER CUT OFF DEVICES. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE RE VENUE IN THIS ISSUE. 11. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.2143 OF 2016, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 A) GROUND NO. 4(I) - REFUND OF SALES TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.5,79,39,673/- HELD AS CAPITAL RECEIPT :- DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD REDUCED A SUM OF RS.5,79,39,673/- FROM ITS INCOME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT BEING CAPITAL SUBSIDY RECEIVED. THE BREAK-UP OF THE SAME WAS SHOW N AS FOLLOWS: A. KUTCH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 2001 IN RESPECT OF FIBR E CEMENT PLANT AT ANJAR, BHUJ, GUJARAT RS.2,91,81,0 43/- B. WEST BENGAL INCENTIVE SCHEME 2000 IN RESPECT OF FIBRE CEMENT PLANT AND CLINKER GRINDING UNIT AT KHARAGPUR , WEST BENGAL RS.2,87,58,630/- THE LD. AO OPINED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, T O TREAT THE INCENTIVE GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE BUSINESS AND 17 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 REDUCE THE BURDEN IN UNDER-DEVELOPED AREAS AS CAPIT AL RECEIPT, IS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED FALLS IN THE REVENUE FIELD. HE FURTHER OPINED THAT SUCH SUBSIDY WAS ONLY A CONC ESSION WHICH INCREASES THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO FU RTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO TREAT THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT AS NON-TAXABLE INCOME AND SINCE THE INCENTIVE RECEIVED IS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE RECE IPT ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER ON APPEAL. THE LD.CIT( A) RELYING IN HIS EARLIER ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 IN ITA 169/2009-10 AND 34/2010-11 DIRECTED THE LD.AO T O DELETE THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT TH E ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD REPORTED IN 228 ITR 253 (SC) AND 152 ITR 39 (AP HIG H COURT). HE THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO MAY B E REINSTATED. THE LD.AR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A). 18 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE GIST OF THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE CIT VS. SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LTD., BY THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 152 ITR 39, I S REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- FACTS OF THE CASE : THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED REFUNDS OF SALES TAX ON PURCHASE OF MACHINERY AND RAW MATERIALS AND ON T HE SALE OF FINISHED GOODS UNDER A G.O. ISSUED BY THE STATE GOV ERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. THE G.O. HAD BEEN ISSUED WITH A VI EW TO SPEED UP THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY AND COULD NOT BE DISTRIBUTED AS PROFITS. THE ITO ASSESSED TH E RECEIPTS BUT THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY WAS IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND IT WAS NOT ALSO ASS ESSABLE UNDER S.41(1). ON A REFERENCE, IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT OF THE NATURE OF INCOME AT ALL AND IN ANY CASE IT WAS A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION . DECISION : IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR A RECEIPT TO CO NSTITUTE INCOME THAT IT MUST NECESSARILY BE IN THE NATURE OF RETURN. IT MAY BE THAT THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE BENEF ITS EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE G.O. IN THE COMMON LAW SENSE. BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS AN ACT OF GENEROSI TY ON THE PART OF THE STATE. THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN ITS INDUSTRI AL DEVELOPMENT; IT WANTS TO ATTRACT INDUSTRIES TO ENHANCE THE EMPLO YMENT POTENTIAL, ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND THE INCOME OF TH E STATE. IT IS TO ATTRACT NEW ENTREPRENEURS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HA D COME FORWARD WITH THE SAID INCENTIVES. THE PAYMENTS COU LD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. THE ASSE SSEE AND FOR THAT MATTER ANY OTHER PERSON SETTING UP AN INDUSTRY IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WAS ENTITLED TO THE FACILITIES AN D INCENTIVES PROVIDED BY THE SAID G.O. AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, WHI CH, IF DENIED, HE COULD ENFORCE IN A COURT OF LAW. THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT RESERVED TO ITSELF THE POWER TO WITHDRAW THE G.O. 19 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 OR TO AMEND IT, DID NOT MEAN THAT SO LONG AS THE G. O. WAS IN OPERATION, THE PERSONS CONCERNED DID NOT HAVE A RIG HT TO ENFORCE THE SAME. THE SOURCE AS WELL AS THE PAYMENTS WERE BOTH CERTAIN AND DEFINITE. THE PAYMENTS WERE INSEPARABLY CONNEC TED WITH THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEF ITS WERE AVAILABLE ONLY FROM THE DATE THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UND ERTAKING COMMENCED PRODUCTION AND FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS THEREFROM. THE REFUND OR THE SUBSIDY, AS IT MAY BE CALLED, WAS DEPENDANT UPON THE INDUSTRY CONTINUING IN PRODUCTION. THERE WAS NO ROOM OR BASIS FOR DISASSOCIATING THE SUBSIDY FROM THE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN AS MUCH AS THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN FOR D EVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER UNRELATED PUR POSES. THE PAYMENT WAS NOT A SUBSIDY FOR SETTING UP THE PLANT BUT A SUBSIDY GIVEN FOR THE EFFICIENT AND PROFITABLE RUNNING OF T HE INDUSTRY AND ITS GROWTH. THE RECEIPT WAS, THEREFORE, OF A REVEN UE NATURE. ALL THREE ITEMS COMPRISED IN THE PAYMENT CONSTITUTED IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER ON APPEAL, THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE AB OVE SAID CASE ALSO HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE GIST OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT, UNDER THE NOTIFICATIO N IN QUESTION THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO ASSIST THE NEW I NDUSTRIES AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS TO CARRY ON THEIR B USINESS. THE PAYMENTS WERE NOTHING BUT SUPPLEMENTARY TRADE R ECEIPTS. IT WAS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT USE THIS MO NEY FOR DISTRIBUTION AS DIVIDEND TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS FREE TO USE THE MONEY IN ITS BUSINESS ENTIRELY AS IT LIKED AND WAS NOT OBLIGED TO SPEND THE MONEY FOR A PARTIC ULAR PURPOSE. THE SUBSIDIES HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED FOR PR ODUCTION OF, OR BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE ANY NEW ASSET. THE SUBSIDIES WERE GRANTED YEAR AFTER YEAR, ONLY AFTER THE SETTIN G UP OF THE NEW INDUSTRY AND COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION. SUCH A SUBSIDY COULD ONLY BE TREATED AS ASSISTANCE GIVEN F OR THE 20 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE SUBSIDIES WERE OF REVENUE NATURE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ABO VE SAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. IT IS ORDERED ACCOR DINGLY. B) GROUND NO.4(II) : CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS A S AGAINST 15% / 7.5% ALLOWED BY THE LD.AO:- 1. CLARIFIER BIT :- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THE AFORESAID PLANT UN DER SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND RESOURCE SYSTEM BASED ON THE CE RTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER. IN THIS SITUATION , WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF TH E LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF TECHNICAL EXPERT. 2. DUST COLLECTOR :- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THE AFORESAID PLANT AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT F IND IT 21 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT (A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF TECHNICAL EXPERT. 3. WASTE DISSOLVER :- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THE AFORESAID PLANT UN DER SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND RESOURCE SYSTEM BASED ON THE CE RTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER. IN THIS SITUATION , WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF TH E LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF TECHNICAL EXPERT. 4. PULVERISER MACHINE :- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THE AFORESAID PLANT UNDER SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND RESOURCE SYSTEM BAS ED ON THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER. I N THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF T ECHNICAL EXPERT. 5. DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM :- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THE AFORESAID PLANT AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE GIVE N BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT F IND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT (A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF TECHNICAL EXPERT. 6. MICRO DUST COLLECTOR :- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THE AFORESAID PLANT AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT F IND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT (A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF TECHNICAL EXPERT. 12. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1876 OF 2016, ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 22 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 A) GROUND NO. 5(II) FLY ASH SILO AT VIJAYAWADA UN IT :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON FLY ASH SILO AT VIJAYAWADA UNIT UNDER RULE 5 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(E) OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM & EVACUATION SYSTEM AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER THE LD.AO DENI ED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION STA TING THAT THE ASSET DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSET MENTIONED IN TH E LIST OF ITEMS GIVEN IN NEW APPENDIX I OF DEPRECIATION TABLE. TH EREFORE THE LD.AO HAD GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND 7.5 % FOR THE ADDITIONAL MACHINERY PURCHASED DURING THE SECOND QU ARTER AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A PPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY INSTALLED MODERN FLY ASH SILO WHI CH IS INCIDENTALLY FITTED WITH A BAG FILTER AND IT DOES N OT AMOUNT TO EITHER DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM OR SOLID WASTAGE RECYCLING SY STEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, DE NYING THE HIGHER DEPRECIATION. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION P RESCRIBED UNDER 23 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHINERY AND PLANT 3 (VIII)(E). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, FLY ASH SILO DOES NOT AMO UNT TO EITHER DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM OR SOLID WASTAGE RECYCLING SY STEM. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPR OPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. B) GROUND NO. 5(III) CEMENT BLOWER AT BHUJ :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON CEMENT B LOWER AT BHUJ UNIT UNDER RULE 5 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(E) OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM & EVACUATION SYSTEM AIR POLLU TION CONTROL EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION STATING THAT THE ASSET DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSET MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF ITEMS GIVEN IN N EW APPENDIX I OF DEPRECIATION TABLE. THEREFORE THE LD.AO HAD GRANT ED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND 7.5 % FOR THE ADDITIONAL MACHINERY PURCHA SED IN THE SECOND QUARTER AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PERUSING THE PURCHASE BILL OF THE MACHINERY, THAT I T IS ONLY AIR COMPRESSOR AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS SOLID WASTE REC YCLING SYSTEM 24 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 OR DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, DENYING THE HIGHER DEPRECIATION. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION P RESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHINERY AND PLANT 3 (VIII)(E). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, CEMENT BLOWER IS ONLY AIR COMPRESSOR AND DOES NOT AMOUNT TO EITHER DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM OR SOLID WASTAGE RECYCLING SYSTEM. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECI ATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NO T FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVEN UE IN THIS ISSUE. C) GROUND NO. 5(IV) CENTRIFUGAL FAN AT SPINNING M ILLS :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON CENTRIFUGAL FAN AT SPINNING MILLS UNDER RULE 5 ITEM NO.8(XIII)( E) OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES - AIR/ GAS/FLUID HEATING SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSESS EES CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION STATING THAT THE ASS ET DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSET MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF ITEMS GIVEN IN NEW APPENDIX I OF DEPRECIATION TABLE. THEREFORE THE LD.AO HAD G RANTED 25 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND 7.5 % FOR THE ADDITIONAL MAC HINERY PURCHASED IN THE SECOND QUARTER AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PERUSING THE PURCHASE BILL OF THE M ACHINERY THAT IT IS ONLY CENTRIFUGAL FAN WITH DRY BAGS AND BASE FRAM E. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS EITHER AIR POLLUTION CONTROL E QUIPMENT OR SOLID WASTES RECYCLE SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED TH E ORDER OF THE LD.AO, IN RESTRICTING THE DEPRECIATION. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION PRES CRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHINERY AND PLANT 8 (XIII)(E). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, CENTRIFUGAL FAN HELPS TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MACHINERY AND DOES NOT AMOUNT TO EITHER AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT OR SOLID WASTE RECYCLE SYSTEM. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. 26 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 13. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.2144 OF 2016, ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11: A) GROUND NO. 6 (I) : REFUND OF SALES TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.5,40,36,767/- HELD AS CAPITAL RECEIPT :- ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL I N ITA NO.2143 OF 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WE HAVE REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) I N ORDER TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE AP HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA. ACCOR DINGLY, FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE SAME DECISION HOL DS GOOD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. B) GROUND NO. 6 (II): CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS A S AGAINST 15% / 7.5% ALLOWED BY THE LD.AO:- 1. WATER TANK CLARIFIER 2. SEWAGE PLANT 3. CHIMNEYS PIPELINE FOR DUST COLLECTOR 4. DUST COLLECTOR THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECI ATION BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED EN GINEER. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF TECH NICAL EXPERT. THEREFORE THIS ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DEVO ID OF MERIT. 27 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 14. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1877 OF 2016, ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 A) GROUND NO.: 7 (II) & 7 (III) - HIGHER DEPRECIA TION ON COST OF VACUUM CLEANER AT IBRAHIM PATTINAM & BHUJ :- ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE, IN ITA NO.1875 OF 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10 HEREIN ABOVE, THE MATTER HAS BEEN HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO TH E SAME DECISION HOLDS GOOD AND ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS HE LD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. B) GROUND NO.: 7 (IV) BIOMASS GASSIFIER AT KARUR :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON BIOMASS GASIFIER AT KARUR UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(C) O F PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. THE LD.AO DENIE D THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT THE MACHINERY DOES NOT FALL IN THE NATURE OF DUST COLLE CTOR SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE LD.AO GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DI SALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) EXAMINED THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED EN GINEER. FROM THE CERTIFICATE IT WAS REVEALED THAT BIOMASS GASIFI ER IS AN 28 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY USED FOR DRYING CORRUGATED ASBES TOS SHEETS. THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE TREA TED AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE LD.AO. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION P RESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHINERY AND PLANT 3 (VIII)(C). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BIOMASS GASIFIER CANN OT BE TREATED AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIA TE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. C) GROUND NO.: 7 (V) VACUUM PUMP AT KARUN :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON VACUUM P UMP AT KARUR UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(E) OF PART III - PLANT & MACHINERY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM AND EVACUATION SYSTEM. THE LD.AO DE NIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT THE MACHINERY DO NOT CONTROL AIR POLLUTION OR WATER POL LUTION. HOWEVER THE LD.AO GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE 29 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CI T(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE IT IS A NORMAL PUMP FOR FLUSHING OUT THE SLURRY FLY ASH AND IT DOES NOT CON TROL AIR OR WATER POLLUTION. THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE A BOVE SAID MACHINERY CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASH HANDLING SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD.AO. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO ASH HANDLING SYSTEM AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED U NDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHINERY AND PLANT 3(VII I)|(E). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A), IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASH HANDLING SYSTEM, SINCE IT IS USED ON LY FOR FLUSHING OUT THE SLURRY ASH. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS IS SUE. D) GROUND NO.: 7 (VI) - FLY ASH SILO TANK AT GANGA I KONDAN:- ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE, IN ITA NO.1876 OF 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HEREIN ABOVE, THE MATTER HAS BEEN HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR ALSO THE 30 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 SAME DECISION HOLDS GOOD AND ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. E) GROUND NO. 7 (VII) - CAPACITY DUTY CONTRACTOR AT GANGAIKONDAN:- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON CAPACITY DUTY CONTRACTOR AT GANGAIK ONDAN UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.8(IX)(B)(A) OF PART III AUTOMATIC ELECTRICAL LOAD MONITORING SYSTEMS. THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT THE MAC HINERY DO NOT FALL UNDER AUTOMATIC ELECTRICAL LOAD MONITORING SYSTEMS. HOWEVER THE LD.AO GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HE LD THAT AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CHARTERED ENGINEER, THE EQUI PMENT WAS INSTALLED TO SAVE ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND THE ITEM F ALLS UNDER AUTOMATIC ELECTRICAL LOAD MONITORING SYSTEM. BUT O N PERUSING THE PURCHASE BILL, IT REVEALED THAT IT IS ONLY A CAPACI TOR. THEREFORE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AUTOMAT IC ELECTRICAL LOAD MONITORING SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE LD.AO. 31 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO ENERGY SAVING DEVICES AUTOMATIC ELECTRICAL LOAD MONITORI NG SYSTEMS AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED UNDER NEW A PPENDIX RULE- PART A-III-MACHINERY AND PLANT 8(IX)(B)(A). IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) IT CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS AUTOMATIC ELECTRICAL LOAD MONITORING SYSTEM. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. G) GROUND NO.: 7 (VIII) - TRAVELLING CLEANER AT RA JAPALAYAM SPINNING MILL :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON TRAVELLING CLEANER AT RAJAPALAYAM S PINNING MILL UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(C) OF PART III DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HIGHER RAT E OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT THE MACHINERY IS NOT D UST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE LD.AO GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15 % AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A PPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN INSTALL ED ONLY TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF YARN AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS 32 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED TH E ACTION OF THE LD.AO. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM AS PER THE RATE O F DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHI NERY AND PLANT 3(VIII)(C). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, A S HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN INSTALLED ONLY TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF YARN AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS DUST COLLE CTOR SYSTEM. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVEN UE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSAR Y TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. H) GROUND NO.: 7 (IX) - WASTE COTTON COLLECTION AT RAJAPALAYAM SPINNING MILLS :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON WASTE COTTON COLLECTION AT RAJAPALAYAM SPINNING MILLS UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(C) OF P ART III AIR/GAS FLUID HEATING SYSTEMS. THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT THE MAC HINERY DO NOT CONTROL AIR POLLUTION. HOWEVER THE LD.AO GRANTED DE PRECIATION @ 33 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 15% AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THOUGH THE EQUIPMEN T IS CERTIFIED AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM BUT AS PER THE BILL, IT RE PRESENTS WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATE D AS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL MACHINE BEING DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACCOR DINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD.AO. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM AS PER THE RATE O F DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHI NERY AND PLANT 3(VIII)(C). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, F ROM THE BILL, IT IS ONLY A WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM. THERE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS POLLUTION CONTROL MACHINE AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIA TE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS ISSUE. I) GROUND NO.: 7 (X) - ENERGY EFFICIENT CENTRIFUGA L FAN AT RAJAPALAYAM SPINNING MILLS :- ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE, IN ITA NO.1876 OF 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HER EIN ABOVE, 34 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 THE MATTER HAS BEEN HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE REFORE, FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE SAME DECISION HOL DS GOOD AND ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. G) GROUND NO.: 7 (XI) - HUMICAN CONTROL SYSTEM AT RAJAPALAYAM MILLS :- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON HUMICAN CONTROL SYSTEM AT RAJAPALAY AM MILLS UNDER RULE 6 ITEM NO.3(VIII)(C) OF PART III DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEMS. THE LD.AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HIGHER RAT E OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT THE MACHINERY IS NOT A DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE LD.AO GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15 % AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE FORE THE LD.AO HAD GRANTED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE B ALANCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THA T THE MACHINE HAS BEEN INSTALLED ONLY TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF Y ARN AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. ACC ORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD.AO. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE F INDINGS OF THE REVENUE. HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM AS PER THE RATE O F DEPRECIATION 35 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 PRESCRIBED UNDER NEW APPENDIX RULE-PART A-III-MACHI NERY AND PLANT DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM - 3(VIII)(C). IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MACHINE IS USED TO IMPROVE THE QUALIT Y OF YARN IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THERE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM. HENCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION AL LOWED BY THE REVENUE IS APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS IS SUE. 15. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.2146 OF 2016, ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11: A) GROUND NO. 6 (I) : REFUND OF SALES TAX AMOUNTING TO. RS.6,19,69,482/- HELD AS CAPITAL RECEIPT :- ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL I N ITA NO.2143 OF 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WE HAVE REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) I N ORDER TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE AP HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA. ACCOR DINGLY, FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE SAME DECISION HOL DS GOOD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 36 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 B) GROUND NO. 6 (II): CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS A S AGAINST 15% / 7.5% ALLOWED BY THE LD.AO:- 1. DUST COLLECTOR 2. CHIMNEY WORK 3. BIOMASS GASSIFIER FOR HEATING CHAMBER 4. AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE STABILIZER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECI ATION BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED EN GINEER. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF TECH NICAL EXPERT. THEREFORE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE HELD TO BE DEVOID OF MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND IS DISPOSED OFF. FURTHER WITH RESPECT TO BIOMASS GASSIFIER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CON FIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO. THEREFORE THE REVENUE HAS NO R EASON FOR ANY GRIEVANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY TH E ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO BIOMASS GASSIFIER RAISED IN THE GROUND D OES NOT HAVE ANY MERIT AND ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OFF. 16. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NOS.187 5, 1876, 1877 OF 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 ARE DISMISSED AND REVENUES APPEAL IN 2143, 2144, 2145 OF 2016 FOR 37 I.T.A. NOS. 1875 TO 1877/MDS/2016 & I.T.A NOS.2143 TO 2145/MDS/2016 THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH JULY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 14 TH JULY, 2017. JR. ! ' ! /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. #$% ( ) /CIT(A) 4. #$% /CIT, 5. ! /DR 6. &' /GF.