The DCITBharuch Circle, Bharuch V. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 2921/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5864 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rule of consistency; Assessment record; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, * ** *CH CHCH CH* ** * IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ! I.T.A. NO. 2921/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ! I.T.A. NO. 2930/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (I) DCIT, BHARUCH RANGE, BHARUCH. (II) GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LIMITED. ! VS. (I) GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LIMITED. P.O. NARMADA NAGAR, DIST. BHARUCH (II) DCIT, BHARUCH RANGE, BHARUCH. ' ! #$ ! PAN/GIR NO. : AAACG 8372 Q ( '% / APPELLANTS ) .. ( &'% ! RESPONDENTS ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D.R. RE VENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH, A.R. ' ( )*+ , / DATE OF HEARING 11/04/2017 -./0 *+ , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/05/2017 1! O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH E REVENUE RESPECTIVELY ARE COMMONLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA, DAT ED 06/09/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NO.2930/AHD/2013 AND R EVENUES APPEALS IN ITA NO.2921/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 3. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS: I. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE ON CON SUMPTION OF STORES AND SPARES OF RS.64,31,768/- ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SAME WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. II. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE A DDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.3 ,16,68,491/- ON GOODWILL . 4. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN I. (A) UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF EX PENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF STORES AND SPARES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,13,97,990/- ONLY, AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,12,01,483/- ON THIS COUNT MADE BY AO. (B) RELYING UPON EARLIER YEARS DECISION HELD IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF SARAVA NA SPINNING MILLS 293 ITR 201, IGNORING THAT FACTS FOR A.Y.2008 -09 WERE DIFFERENT. ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - II. ALLOWING DEPRECATION AMOUNTING TO RS.5,73,297/- ON ASSETS GIVEN ON LEASE BY ASSESSEE, WHO WAS NOT ENGAGED IN LEASIN G BUSINESS UNDER MERE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT. 5. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INC OME FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON 26/09/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,13,35, 62,160/-. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FILED ITS REVISED E-RETUR N ON 13/01/2010 REVISING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,05,89,34,379/-. THE O RDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED ON 31/12/2010 ASSESSING TOT AL INCOME AT RS.6,08,35,67,750/-. 6. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY A PPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SO FAR AS CONSUMPT ION OF STORES AND SPARES OF RS. 64,31,768/- ARE CONCERNED AND SAME IS MENTIONED ON AOS ORDER PAGE NO.9, PARA NO.6 AND IN CIT(A)S ORDER PA GE NO.21, PARA NO- 5.3. THIS IS THE CROSS GROUND 1 WITH DEPARTMENT APP EAL. SAME IS COVERED BY ITAT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE. RELEVANT PAGE NO.8, PARA NO.9 WHEREBY THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF AO. ALSO FOR ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - A.Y. 2007-08 THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE AOS ORDER PAGE NO.13, PARA NO. 28 WHO DECIDES THE MATTER. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWINGS, ASSESSEES OWN CASE O RDER PASSED BY THE ITAT. ON THIS GROUND, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE AO. 9. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED REGARDING DEP RECIATION ON GOOD-WILL OF RS.3,16,68,491/- IN CIT(A)S ORDER PAG E NO. 25, PARA NO.9, SAME IS COVERED BY THE ITAT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007- 08 WHEREBY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITAT WAS ADMITTED AND THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). RELEVANT PAGE NO.7, PARA NO.13. FOR THIS GROUND, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT MATTER SHOULD REMIT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. NOW WE TAKE UP THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA NO.2921/AHD/2013 : IN THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL CROSS GROUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL GROUND NO.1 REGARDING STORES AND SPARE PARTS CONSUMED RS.2,12,01,483/- DISALLOWED BY AO (-)RS. 1 ,13,97,990/- (TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT FIGURE OF RS.1,58,95,270/- AS PER THE AR) UPHELD BY CIT(A). NOW RS.99,03,493/- AMOUNT IN DISPUTE BY DEP ARTMENT. SAME ARE REFLECTING IN AOS ORDER PAGE NO. 9, PARA NO.6 AND CITS PAGE NO.5, PARA NO.5. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE IT AT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS FOR DISALLO WANCE OF RS.51,49,4577- OUT OF CONSUMPTION OF STORES AND SPA RES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.5710.25 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMPTION AND REPLACEMENT OF STORES AND SPARES TREATING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE DETAI LS OF STORES AND SPARES WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. BY THE APPELL ANT BUT ON VERIFICATION OF DETAILS THE LD. A.O. FOUND THAT IN CASE OF FOLLOWING ITEM THE EXPENDITURE IS HAVING NATURE OF CAPITAL. SR.NO. ITEM AMOUNT DEPRECIATION RATE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT 1. BEARING ASSEMBLY 1,009,620 17.50% 1,76,684 2. HARDWARE FOR PLC1 UPGRADE 1,527,931 35.00% 5,34,776 3. GEAR BOX 2,792,602 17.50% 4,88,705 4. TUBE BUNDLE FOR E-107-IV 5,037,942 17.50% 8,81,640 5. REACTOR EFFLUENT WATER COOLER, MEA405 19,163,671 17.50% 33,53,642 TOTAL 2,95,31,766 54,35,447 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOV E ITEMS ARE IN THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENT MACHINE OR APPARATUS AND HENC E CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY USED FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES, WH ICH IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED OF CAPITAL NATURE. ACCORDINGLY EXPENDITURE ON STORES AND SPARES OF RS.2,95,31,766/- WAS CAPITALIZED AND DEPRECIATIO N ON IT WAS ALLOWED AT RS.54,35,447/- BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS GIVEN DETAILED FINDINGS ON PAGE NOS. 13 TO 17. AFTER CONS IDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HE FOUND THE HARDWARE FO R PLC1 UPGRADE OF RS. 15,27,931/- AND TUBE BUNDLE FOR E-107-IV OF RS. 50,37,942/- AS ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND REMAINING ITEMS WERE ALLOWE D AS REVENUES EXPENDITURE. NOW, THE MATTER IS BEFORE US. THE ID. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THESE ARE THE REPLACEMENT OF PARTS. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PREVIOUS YEAR HAS ALLOWED THESE REPLACEMENT OF PART S AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, WHICH IS PENDING. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS LTD. 293 ITR 201 IN WHICH THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY REPLACEMENT OF THESE PARTS NO MARKETABLE PRODUCT CAN BE PRODUCED BY USING OF THEM WHICH IS NECESSITATED REPLACEMENT ONLY. THEREFORE, HE REQUES TED TO ALLOW THE WHOLE EXPENDITURE. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD . CIT.D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE APP ELLANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND HEARD THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED THAT THIS REPLACEMENT OF STORES AND SPARES CAN BE USED INDEPENDENTLY AND ITS OF REPLACEMENT OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. AS PER A.O'S OBSERVATION IT HAS ENDORSING BENEFIT TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO RE-EXAMINE WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RE-EXAMINE THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE ITEM-WISE AND TAKE DECISIONS AS PER LAW . GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF D EPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.7,93,490/- ON THE ASSETS LEASED BY THE APPELLANT TO WESTERN RAILWAYS. THE APPELLANT HAD LEASED CERTAIN RAILWAY WAGONS TO WESTERN RAILWAY AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON IT. THE A.O. ASKED TO GIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR CLAIMING OF DEPRECIATION ON THOSE RAILWAY WAGONS. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE A.O. AN D CLAIMED THAT LEASE RENT OF RS.72,15,314/- WAS CREDITED IN P&L ACCOUNT AND HAD SHOWN AS INCOME AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.27,71,806/- BEING LEASE EQUALIZATION AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AND SHOWN AS REDUCTION FROM THE LEASE RENT. BUT AS IN COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCO ME, THE LEASE EQUALIZATION AMOUNT OF RS.27,71,806/- WAS ADDED IN THE INCOME AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION BUT DEPRECIATION AS PER IT LAW WAS CLAIMED. THE APPELLANT ALSO CLAIMED IF THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW TH E DEPRECIATION ON RAILWAY WAGONS THEN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ASSETS OF RS.64,28,352/- ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INCOME AND ONLY TAX FIN ANCE INCOME OF RS.7,86,962/-. THE A.O. RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIO NS :- I) U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN.- 225 ITR 703(SC) II) TUTICORIN ALKALIES CHEMICALS & FERTILIZER S LTD. VS. CIT - 227 ITR 172(SC) III) SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA - 1966 AIR SC 1178 IV) DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS. STATE OF BI HAR - 12 STC 102(SC) V) MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. CIT - 239 ITR 775 (SC) VI) GAURISHANKAR FINANCE LTD. VS. CIT - 166 CT R 137(KAR) VII) CENTER FOR MONITORING INDIAN ECONOMY VS. D CIT INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 NO. 3820/BOM/1990 DTD. 29.04.1996 LD. A.O. HELD THAT THIS IS FINANCE LEASE WITH WESTE RN RAILWAY BY PURCHASING THE RAILWAY WAGONS. THEREFORE, HE DISALL OWED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,93,490/-. THE ID. A.O. CONSIDE RED THE PAST ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2000-01, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 200 5-06. HE EXCLUDED THE CAPITAL PORTION OF RS.64,28,352/- OUT OF LEASE RENT INCOME OF RS.72,15,314/- AND INTEREST INCOME OF RS.7,86,96 2/- WAS CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. T HE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BEFORE T HE CIT(A) IN CASE OF SHAAN FINANCE LTD, 268 ITR 308, DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PINNACLE FINANCE LTD. 268 ITR 395, DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MID EST INDIA PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LTD. 87 ITD 537, ITAT MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT SPECIAL RANGE VIII CHENNAI VS. THE INVESTMENT T RUST OF INDIA LTD. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER IS AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLA NT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SUBMISSION S AND THE INFERENCES DRAWN THEREON HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY DISCUSSED AND DEALT WITH IN MY PREDECESSOR'S ORDER FOR A.Y. 2 003-04. THE PLEADINGS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE ISSUE ARE IDENTIC AL TO THOSE ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE FOR A. Y.2003-04. ON IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 VIDE ORDER NO.CAB/VI-97/06-0 7 DATED 31- 01-2007 AT PARAS 17 TO 17.3.6 ON PAGE NOS.42 TO 56 THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED. RELYING ON MY PR EDECESSOR'S ORDER FOR A.Y. 2003-04 THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIA TION OF RS.7,93,490 IS CONFIRMED.' NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE RAILWAY WAGONS WERE GIVEN ON LEA SE TO WESTERN RAILWAY SINCE 1997-98. THE LEASE RENT HAS BEEN OFFE RED FOR TAXATION AND DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED. HE FURTHE R DREW OUR ATTENTION IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.03-04 TO 05-06 IN IT A NOS. 1373 & 3993/AHD/07 & 2401/AHD/08. THE OPERATIVE PART OF TH E CO-ORDINATE 'D' BENCH DECISION IS AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD.(SUPRA) BY THE LEARNED DR, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED DR THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE EQUIPMENTS FOR THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE PLANT ITSELF AND NOT MORE THAN THAT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS NOT A CASE, AS IS APPEARING FROM DIFFERENT CLAUSES OF THE LEASE DEED THAT THE EQUIPMENTS LEASED WILL BE RETURNED BACK TO THE LESS OR AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO DI SAPPROVE THE SAID CLAUSES OF THE LEASE DEED BY ANY OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW OR BY THE LEARNED DR. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT PROVE T HAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A FINANCER AND IS NOT INTEREST ED IN THE ASSETS AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID AS FULL PAYOUT LEA SE. THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ARG UMENTS MADE BY THE LEARNED DR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED TH E CLAIM AND WE DIRECT THE AO ACCORDINGLY TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REVERSED. THUS, GROUND NO.12 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' THE LD. CIT.D.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) & A.O. AND HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON RECENT DECISION OF SPECI AL BENCH, MUMBAI, IN CASE OF M/S. LNDUSLND BANK LIMITED VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSION ER OF ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - INCOME-TAX IN ITA NO. 6566/MUM/2002 FOR A.Y. 1998-9 9 AND ITA NO.606/MUM/2003 FOR A.Y 1999-2000 IN WHICH HON'BLE 'G' BENCH, MUMBAI, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF ABB LTD. 54 TAXMAN 512 (SC) AND HELD FINANCE LEASE. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE T ERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE AGREEMENT MENTIONED ON PAGE NO. 29 AND EXPLANATION AT PAGE NO.30 BY THE A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND S PECIAL BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF M/S. LNDUSIND BANK LIMITED VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN ITA NO. 6566/MUM/2002 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 AND ITA NO. 606/MUM/2003 FOR A.Y 1999-2000. A FRESH RE- LOOK IS REQUIRED AS CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD GIVEN FIN DINGS IN ABOVE CASE AFTER CONSIDERING THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISIO N IN CASE OF ABB LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE A.O. FOR DE NOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF M/S. INDUSLND BAN K LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. 11. SO FAR AS DEPRECIATION ON LEASE ASSETS OF RS.5, 73,297/- AND SAME IS MENTIONED IN AOS ORDER PAGE NO.18, PARA NO.8 AND C IT(A)S ORDER PAGE NO.22, PARA NO.7M SAME IS COVERED AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT BY ITATS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-0 7 RELEVANT PAGE NO.10, PARA NO.13 AND A.Y.2007-08. 12. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND MATTER REMIT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO PERTAINING TO GROUND NO. 2 AND PERTAINING TO GROUND NO. 1. WE REMIT BACK TO THE FI LE OF CIT(A) IN DEPARTMENT APPEAL IN GROUND NO.2 LEASE ASSETS OF R S.5,73,297/- IS DECIDED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.2921/ AHD/2013 & ITA NO. 2930/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LT D. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO .2930/AHD/2013 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 2921/A HD/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/05/2017 SD/- SD/- IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/05/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS ! ' ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234+ ' 5+ / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' 5+ / THE CIT(A)-IV, BARODA. 5. 67 8+(34 ,340 2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8 9: ) ! GUARD FILE. # $ / BY ORDER, & 6++ //TRUE COPY// %/$ &' ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 11/04/2017(DICTATION-PAD 4 PAGE S ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11/04/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S 11/05/2017 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 11/05/2017 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22/0 5/2017 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER .. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER