, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BE NCH, MUMBAI , !' #$% , !& ! ' BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I .T.A. NO. 2801/MUM/2004 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ICICI BANK LTD., ICICI BANK TOWERS BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. THE DCIT, RANGE 3(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ) !& ./ * ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 1195H ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . ! / APPELLANT BY: MS. ARATI VISSANJI ,-)+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.D. SRIVASTAVA / 0& / DATE OF HEARING :02.12.2014 12( / 0& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5 .12.2014 !3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XII, MUMBAI DT.3.2.2004 PERTAINING TO A.Y.19 98-99. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON LEAS ED ASSETS BY TREATING ITA NO. 2801/M/04 2 THE ENTIRE LEASED TRANSACTIONS AS FINANCE TRANSACTI ONS FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRE CIATION OF RS. 8,22,49,860/- ON THE ASSETS LEASED TO VARIOUS LESSE ES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED 12 WIND MI LLS FROM M/S. RENEWABLE ENERGYY SYSTEMS LTD., HYDERABAD FOR RS. 9 .60 CRORES AND GAVE THEMN BACK ON LEASE TO THE SUPPLIER ON WHICH T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 100% DEPRECIATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR, 50% OF THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIME D AT RS. 4.80 CRORES. THE REMAINING DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,42,49,860/- WAS ON THE ASSETS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. T HE DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR AT RS. 4.80 CRORES WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION OF RS. 3,42,49,860/- IN RESPECT OF LEASED TRANSACTION ENT ERED INTO EARLIER YEARS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ITA NOS. 3643 & 3644/M/2001. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON THE ITA NO. 2801/M/04 3 OPENING BALANCE OF WDV THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE-3 & 4 HAS ADMITT ED THAT THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,42,49,860/- IS ON ASSETS WHIC H WERE ACQUIRED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUN AL IN ITA NOS. 3643 & 3644/M/01 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. SINCE THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE W DV BROUGHT FORWARD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE DISAL LOWED. WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DEC.2014 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER !& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4 DATED : . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 2801/M/04 4 !3 !3 !3 !3 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 6 / CIT 5. 78 ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8 9 / GUARD FILE. !3 !3 !3 !3 / BY ORDER, -0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// : :: : / ; ; ; ; (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI