DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Chennai City Center Holdings Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2224/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4273 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A SUSHMA HARINI
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.2224/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2) CHENNAI. VS. M/S. CHENNAI CITY CENTRE HOLDINGS P. LTD, NO.5, BUKHARIA BUILDINGS, MOORES ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006. [PAN AAACG 3869Q] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. ASHISH TRIPATHI, JCIT. /RESPONDENT BY : MS. A. SUSHMA HARINI, ADV /DATE OF HEARING : 20-06-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-06-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, IT IS AGGRI EVED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED DEPREC IATION AT 80% ON THE CIVIL WORKS OF WINDMILLS. ITA NO.2224/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POONAWALA FINVEST & AGRO (PVT ) LTD VS. ACIT (2008) 12 DTR 211 (PUNE) WHILE DISALLOWING ENHANCED DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON CIVIL WORKS OF THE WINDMILLS . ACCORDING TO HIM, CIVIL WORKS IN THE NATURE OF CONTROL ROOM AND BUILDING HOUSING THE WINDMILL COU LD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS WINDMILL FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION. 3. PER CONTRA, AND IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL ON REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-2011 AN D 2011-2012. ACCORDING TO HER, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT ENHA NCED DEPRECIATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION USED FOR INSTALLATION OF WINDMILLS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KUTTI SPINNERS (P) LTD, (2014) 34 ITR (TRIB) 0470. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE CONTENTION S. WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL IN REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-2011 AND 2011-12 (IN ITA NOS. 1000 & 10001/MDS2016, DATED 23.09.2016) WHERE THE RESPONDENT ITA NO.2224/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: WAS THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EI THER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WH EN THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ERECTION OF WINDMILL, WHETHER SUCH A BUILDING WOULD FORM PART OF WINDMILL? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE WINDMILL CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT A CI VIL FOUNDATION. THEREFORE, THE CIVIL WORK / BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION OF WINDMILL HAS TO BE NECESSARILY CONS TRUED AS PART OF WINDMILL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WINDMILL C ANNOT EXIST WITHOUT CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE CI VIL CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE WINDMILL HAS TO BE CONS TRUED AS SINGLE UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIAT ION AT THE RATE OF 80%. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAD DULY CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POONAWALA FINVEST & AGRO (PVT ) LTD (SUPRA) BEFORE DECIDING TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CAS E OF KUTTI SPINNERS (P) LTD (SUPRA) . LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR GIVING PREFERENCE TO DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL RATHER THAN THAT OF A BENC H SITUATED ELSEWHERE. WE THUS, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITA NO.2224/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE , 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 22ND JUNE, 2017 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF