M/s. Bartaman Pvt. Limited, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 257/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4671 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 257/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 257 /KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 M/S. BARTAMAN PVT. LIMITED,........................ ............................APPELLANT 6, J.B.S. HALDONE AVENUE, BY PASS, KOLKATA-700 105 [PAN : AABCB 2117 R] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ...................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUNIL SURANA, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 15, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 10, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M .: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-3, KO LKATA DATED 14.12.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PUBLICATION OF DAILY NEWSPAPER, WEE KLY AND MONTHLY MAGAZINE AND PUJA ANNUAL NUMBER. THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 30.09.2011 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,97,25,065/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U NDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 24.02.2014, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSEESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.17,97,44, 065/- AFTER MAKING I.T.A. NO. 257/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 2 OF 4 SOME SMALL ADDITIONS. THE RECORD OF THE SAID ASSESS MENT CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS PER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, SUCH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) WAS ALLOWABLE ON ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY, WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSES SEE, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPERS, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE SAME. THE LD. CIT, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 WAS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY REQUI RING SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE REVI SED ON THIS ISSUE. 3. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESESE BY RE LYING ON THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UJAGAR PRINTS [179 ITR 317] TH AT THE JOB OF PRINTING WAS IN THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURING AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) ON THE ADDITION MADE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH DEPRECIATION, THEREFORE, WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE CALLING FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 263. THE LD. CIT DID NOT DISPUTE OR CONTROVERT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS. HE, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER JOB OF PRINTING I S MANUFACTURING OR NOT SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS PER SECTION 32(1)(IIA), HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED OR EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3), THEREFORE, WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF TH E REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A I.T.A. NO. 257/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 3 OF 4 DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) PASSED UNDER SECTION 263, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS AGREED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES, THE ISSUE ON WHI CH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT BY EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM UND ER SECTION 263 BY TREATING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS SQUARELY COVERED ON MERIT BY THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. AS FURTHER AGREED BY THEM, THE CBDT ALSO HAS ACCEPTED THIS POSITION IN CIRCULAR NO. 15/2016 ISSUED ON 19 TH MAY, 2016 CLARIFYING THAT IT IS SETTLED THAT THE BUSINESS OF PRINTING OR PRINTING AND PUBLISHING AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING AND IS ACCORDINGLY ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UN DER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE F OR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1) (IIA) THUS WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE JUSTIFYING INTERFERENCE BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS RE STORED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 10, 20 16. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISHWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 I.T.A. NO. 257/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. BARTAMAN PVT. LIMITED, 6, J.B.S. HALDONE AVENUE, BY PASS, KOLKATA-700 105 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -3; (4) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-7, K OLKATA, (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.