Gladder Ceramics Lld., Sabarkantha V. The ACIT.,S.K.Circle, Himatnagar

ITA 2186/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0781 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA HEARING CONCLUDED ON
• Assessee Lawyers: P S PARMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 2186/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007 - 08 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO. : 2 186 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR S: 2007 - 08 GLADDER CERAMICS LIMITED ............APPELLANT [AABCG7607D ] VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SAB ARKANTHA CIRCLE, HIMATNAGAR ...........RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY P S PARMAR FOR THE APPELLANT O P MEENA FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 18/07/16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 16 /08/16 O R D E R 1. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT I AM REQUIRED T O ADJUDICATE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE AO S ACTION IN DECLINING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3)R.W.S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE CIT(A) WAS PASSED ON 8 TH JULY 2013. 2. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A VERY NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS. IT IS A CASE OF REOPENED ASSESSMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT WH ILE THE APPLICABLE DEPRECIATION RATE FOR ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS IS ONLY 10%, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION @ 15%. THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM IN EXCESS OF 10% WAS THUS DECLINED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCES S. WHILE THE CIT(A) DID TAKE NOTE OF THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION THAT ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH I.T.A. NO.: 2186/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007 - 08 PAGE 2 OF 2 DEPRECIATION @ 15% IS CLAIMED, ARE INTEGRAL PART OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION DEPRECIATION @15% WILL BE ADMISSIBLE, HE DECLINED TO GRANT RELIEF FOR WANT OF COCLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE FACTUAL ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE PROPOSITION. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. I AM IN CONSIDERED AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS LONG AS ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS AND WIRINGS A RE INTEGRAL PART OF THE MACHINERY, THE SAME DEPRECIATION RATE MUST FOLLOW. THERE HAS TO BE, HOWEVER, AT LEAST SOME BASIC DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THIS FACTUAL CLAIM BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. WHILE I UPHOLD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE, I REMIT THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THESE DETAILS. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS WHICH AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE SHOW THAT ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS IN QUESTIONS WERE IN RESPECT OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, THE CLAIM OF DEP RECIATION WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED BY THE AO. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE MATTER STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR THE ABOVE LIMITED VERIFICATIONS. 5. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 16 TH D AY OF AU GUST, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 16 TH DAY OF AUGUST ,2016 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD