M/s. A.V.Thomas & Co Ltd, Alappuzha V. The ACIT, Alappuzha

ITA 298/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8533 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTOM BOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: P VENUGOPAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 32; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 298/C/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPEL L A TE T R IBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SH RI B P JAIN , A M & G EORGE GEORGE.K , J M ITA NO . 298/COCH/2015 . ( A SST YEAR 20 10 - 11 ) M/S A V THOMAS & CO LTD BEACH ROAD ALAPPUZHA 688012 VS THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 ALAPPUZ HA ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCA8810G ASSESSEE BY SH P VENUGOPAL REVENUE BY SH SHANTOM BOSE, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 2 ND JUNE 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6 TH JUNE 2016 OR D ER PER GEORGE GEORGE. K. J M: THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANC E OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CITS ORDER DATED 12.3.2015 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2010 - 11. 2 THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS FOLLOW: 1 . THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM DATED 12/03/2015 P ASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW A SUM OF RS. 3,28,747/ - UNDER SECTION 32(1)(II)(A) OF THE. ACT IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO . 298/C/2015 2 2 . THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,28,747/ - DESPITE THE DETAILED SUBMISSION STATING THAT THE BLENDING OF TEA AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE AND THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE TEA BLENDING PROCESS, TEA FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS HAVING DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS AND TASTE ARE BLENDED IN SUCH PROPORTION BY WHICH THE BENCHMARK CHARACTERISTICS / TASTE OF THE AVT BRAND IS DETERMINED. THIS IS DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF CHARACTERISTICS, TASTE, AND DENSITY FROM THE ORIGINAL TEA WHICH WAS USED FOR THE PROCESS OF BLENDING. CONSIDERING THAT THE RAW MATERIAL IN THE TEA BLENDING PROCESS AND THE FINISHED GOODS ARE DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER AND USE, BLENDING OF TEA FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION 2 (29BA) CLAUSE (A) DIRECTLY. HENCE BLENDING OF TEA WOULD AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE MANUFACTURER TO CLAIM ENHANCED BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 32 (IIA) - 4 . THE ASSESSING OFFICE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT BLEND ING OF TEA WOULD AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE. TO CLAIM ENHANCED BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 32(IIA) DEPRECIATION. 5 . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM DATED 12TH MARCH 2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 15 - 03 - 2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE DEPRECIATION WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS GONE INTO IN DETAIL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED ON 14.9.2010 AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.3.2013. IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U /S 32 (IIA) AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 , 28,747/ - ON PLANT AND MACHINERY ITA NO . 298/C/2015 3 USED IN THE PROCESS OF BLENDING OF TEA. THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED WAS ALLOWED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) DATED 15.3.2013. 4 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CIT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS STATED IN THE NOTICE U/S 263 READ AS FOLLOW S: ' IN ITEM NO . 8(A) OF FORM 3CD IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSUMER MARKETING OF TEA & COFFEE, TRADING , CLEARING, TRANSPORTING AND WAREHOUSING , I . E. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCT ION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING AS SPEC I FIED IN SECTION 32(1)(IIA) READ WITH SECTION 2(29BA). SO THE ACTION OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3 , 28 , 747 IS FOUND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' 4.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE PROPOSED REVISION ISSUED U/S 263 VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 2.3.2015 . THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED VARIOUS PROCESS INVOLVED IN THE BLENDING OF TEA AND MAKING IT MARKETABLE UNDER AVT BRAND NAME AND JUSTIFIED THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(IIA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT S OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES VS CIT REPORTED IN 338 ITR 277 AND IN THE CASE OF TATA TEA LTD VS ACIT REPORTED IN 338 IT R 285. 4.2 THE CIT, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND PASSED ORDER DATED 12.3.2015. THE CIT RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TARA AGENCIES RE PORTED IN 292 ITR 444. THE CIT ALSO STATED IN THE ITA NO . 298/C/2015 4 IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE JUDGMENT S OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES AND TATA TEA LTD (SUPRA) AND SLP HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT. 5 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT AND RELIED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , THE LD DR O N THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE C IT. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE A DDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY IN AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS FIRST INTR ODUCED W E F 1981 BY THE FINANCE ACT 1980 AND WAS OMITTED BY TH E TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1 986 WEF 1 - 4 - 1988. IT WAS AGAIN INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE (NO . 2) ACT 2002 WEF 1 - 4 - 2003 AND WAS AMENDED BY FINANCE (NO . 2) ACT 2004 WEF 1 - 4 - 2005 . THE NOTES ON CLAUSES AS SPELT OUT BY THE FINANCE MINISTER FOR REINT RODUCING THE BENEFIT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION READS AS UNDER: BUDGET SPEECH BY FINANCE MINISTER ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 2002 : PARA 161. I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THE NEED TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR FRESH INVESTMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR. TO GIVE IMPETUS T O SUCH INVESTMENTS , I PROPOSE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 15% ON NEW PLANT MACHINERY ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER 1 - 4 - 2002 FOR SETTLING UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT, OR FOR EXPANDING THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF EXISTING UNITS BY AT LEAST 25%' ITA NO . 298/C/2015 5 6 .1 IT WAS WITH THE ABOVE OBJECT IN MIND , THE SAI D CLAUSE (IIA) WAS INSERTED IN 2002 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED IN 2 005. SECTION 32( 1) (IIA) READS AS UNDER: - IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHIN ERY OR PLANT (OTHER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFTS), WHICH HAS BEEN AC QUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2005 , BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PROD UCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING OR IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO 25 0/0 OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (I I) ' 6.2 AS PER SECTION 32(IIA) , IF AN ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODU CTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING, IN RESPECT OF NEW MACHINERY INSTALLED AFTER 31 - 3 - 2005 THE ASSESS EE WILL BE ENTITLED TO ADDI TIONAL DEPRECIATION CALCULATED @ 25% OF THE COST OF NEW MACHINERY AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION . IN THIS CASE, T HE INVESTMENT IN NEW MACHINERY INSTALLED IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE . THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX FOR GRANT OF ADDIT IONAL DEPRECATION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING . AS PER SECTION 2(29BA) THE WORD MANUFACTURE WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS , MEANS A CHANGE IN A NON - LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING - (A)RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATI ON OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING INTO A NEW AND DISTI NCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME , CHARACTER AND USE ; OR (B )BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE O F A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH A DIFF ERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STRUCTURE ; 6.3 SECTION 2(29BA) DEFINES ONLY MANUFACTURE WHEREAS SECTION 32(1 )(I I A) ITA NO . 298/C/2015 6 SPEAKS ABOUT MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING . THE CIT RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TARA AGENCIES REPORTED IN 292 ITR 444 . IN THE SAID CASE IT WAS A CLAIM FOR EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT ALLOWANCE UNDER THE THEN SECTION 35B . IN THE SAID CASE THE HON. SUPREME CO URT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITY OF BLENDING DOES NOT AMOUNT TO EITHER PR ODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE . THE PROCESS INVOLVED IN BLENDING AS IT STOOD DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 - 3 - 1979 AND THE PROCESS INVOLVED DURI NG THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS (YEAR ENDED 31 - 3 - 2010) HAS UNDERGONE VAST C HANGE. ALL THE PROCESS ARE NOW MECHANIZED AND ARE IN LINE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF FOOD SAFETY & STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (FSSAI) . IF THE BLENDED TEA DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE SAID STANDARDS THEN IT I S A PUNIS HABLE OFFENCE. THE VARIOUS PROCESS INVOLVED ARE : - A ) TEA LEAVES HAVING DIFFERENT GRADES , QUALITIES, ARE TASTED AT THE TESTING ROOMS BY THE APPELLANTS EXPERT TEA TASTERS FROM THE SAMPLES OF TEA PROCURED. B ) BLEND SHEETS ARE PREPARED BASED ON SAMPLES TESTED INDICATING THE DIFFERENT QUALITIES AND GRADES OF EACH BATCH OF TEA LEAVES PROCURED . C ) T HE DIFFERENT GRADES AND PROPORTION OF EACH GRADE OF TEA TO BE BLENDED TO RANK IT PAR WITH THE APPELLANTS BRANDS IS THEN DETERMINED . D ) THE TEAS PROCURED FROM THE DIFFERENT AUCTION CENTERS ARE PASSED T HROUGH SERIES OF AUTOMATIC CLEANING PROCESS THROUGH MAC HINES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT TO REMOVE THE DIVERSE FOREIGN MATERIALS I NCLUDING METALS , ARTICLES FROM THE PACKAGING MATERIALS , JUTE STRINGS ETC . E ) ORIGINAL TEAS AS PER BLEND ORDERS OF SPECIFIC QUANTITY ARE MANUALLY FED INTO THE FEEDING HOPPER AND THE TEA LEAVES ARE MADE TO PASS THROUGH FERTITE MAGNETIC ROLLERS. F ) THE TEAS PASSING OUT OF THE FEEDING HOPPERS ARE DISCHARGED INTO ITA NO . 298/C/2015 7 THE FEED CONVEYOR AND UNIFORMLY SPREAD BY MEANS OF A VIRBRATOR. G ) FIBRE ROLLERS ON THE CONVEYOR ATTRACTS EMBEDDED JUTE FABRIC , POL YTHENE PIECES THROUGH ELECTRO STATIC ACTION . H ) DURING MONSOON SEASON AND DURING WET WEATHER COND I TIONS , BULB IN THE CONVEYOR IS SWITCHED ON TO ABSORB THE MOISTURE . I ) THE TEAS FROM THE FEED CONVEYOR ARE DISCHARGED ONTO A SIFTER CUM SIEVER , WHICH REMOVES EXT RANEOUS PARTICLES LIKE WOOD CHIPS AND BOLDER MATERIALS SO AS TO RENDER THE RIGHT TEA FOR BLENDING . J ) THE TEA IS THEN FED INTO THE BUCKET ELEVATOR WHICH CONVEYS TEA UNDAMAGED INTO THE VERTICAL TOWER BLENDER. K). FROM THE VERTICAL TOWER BLENDER THE TEAS A RE ROLLED INTO ANOTHER SET OF BUCKET ELEVATORS THROUGH THE EIGHT CHAMBERS WHICH CARRIES THE BLEND INTO THE MAIN STORAGE HOPPER . L) AFTER COMPLETION OF THE BLEND THE TEAS SAMPLES OF THE BLENDED TEAS ARE TAKEN OUT FOR AND TESTED FOR TASTE ON LEAF , LIQUOR , INFUSION , FLAVOR , COLOUR , STRENGTH , AROMA ETC. TEAS ARE ALSO TESTED FOR ITS TOTAL ASH , ACID INSOLUBLE ASH , WATCH SOLUBLE ASH, WATER EXTRACT, CRUDE FIBRE , ALKALINITY OF THE TEA , MOISTURE ETC TO ENSURE THAT THE BLENDED TE A MATCHES WITH THE APPELLANTS BRAND. M ) IN THE CASE OF BULK ORDERS TEAS ARE PACKED IN PACKS OF 20KGS OR MORE AND DESPATCHED. THE BLENDED TEAS ARE ALSO FILLED INTO PAPER SACKS MADE OF CRAFT PAPER HAVING METALIZED POLYESTER INNER PLY . FOR TEA BAGS , THE HOPP ERS WITH BLENDED TEA ARE CONNECTED TO THE TEA BAGGING MACHINES. THE FILTER PAPER ROLLS, WIRE FOR STAPLES, THREAD AND TAGS FOR TEA BAGS ARE LOADED ON THE MACHINE WHICH AUTOMATICALLY MANUFACTURE THE TEA BAGS AND FILLS THE SAME WITH APPROXIMATE QUANTITY M EASURED USING SOPHISTICATED AND AUTOMATIC VOLUMETRIC MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS. TEAS ARE ALSO PACKED IN POUCHES USING FFS MACHINE WHICH FILLS AND SEALS THE TEA IN LAMINATED POUCHES WITH THE REQUIRED QUANTITY AFTER MEASURING THE SAME THROUGH ELECTRO - MECHANICA L WEIGHING SYSTEM WHICH IS BUILT I N THE MACHINE ITSELF. 6.4 FROM THE ABOVE I T CAN BE SEEN THAT THE TEA PROCURED FROM THE AUCTION CENTERS HAS TO GO THROUGH THE ABOVE PROCESS TO QUALIFY FOR BEING SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET UNDER THE ASESSEE ' S BRAND NAME, NA MELY AVT PREMIUM. ITA NO . 298/C/2015 8 6.5 THE ACTIVITY OF BLEND I NG OF TEA , WHETHER IT AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION WAS CONS I DERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10 A /10AA I N THE CASE OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD ; ' THAT THE PROVISIONS OF 1 OAL1 OM LATER INTRODUCED SERVE THE VERY SAME PURPOSE OF GRA NTING EXEMPTION ON THE PROFITS EARNED BY INDUSTRIAL UNITS IN THE FREE TRADE ZONES/SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES . THOUGH SECTION 10A DID NOT CONTAIN A DEFINITION FOR ' MANUFACT URE ', THE D EFINITION OF THE TERM CONTAINED IN SECTION 2(R) OF THE SPEC IAL ECONOMIC ZONE ACT 2005 WAS INCORPORATED IN SECTION 10M WEF 10 - 2 - 2006. ADMITTEDLY THE DEFINITION COVERS BLENDING ALSO. THEREFORE, BLENDING AND PACKING OF TEA DONE BY THE ASSESSEE QUAL IFIES FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10M WEF 10 - 2 - 2006. ---- ' 6.6 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TEA LTD. VS . ACIT 338 ITR 285 (KER). THE DECISION IN THE ABOVE CASE IS AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF TARA AGENCIES RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE . 6.7 IN BROOKE BOND LIPTON INDIA LIMITED CASE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T HAS OBSERVED THAN WHEN THE ORIGINAL TEA OF DIFFERENT FLAVOUR, TASTE AND COLOUR ARE BLENDED IN DEFINED PROPORTIONS AND IS FILLED AND SEALED IN PACKED CARTONS , IT IS THIS PACKET OF BLENDED TE A, WHICH IS THE FINAL PRODUCT, AND WHICH IS MARKETED AND EXPORTED. THE SAID PROCESS OF BLENDING & PACKAGING LEADS TO 'VALUE ADDITION' TO THE ORIGINAL TEAS . THE COURT OBSERVED THAT IT WAS QUITE PERMISSIBLE TO TAKE A POSSIBLE VIEW THAT THE PACKAGED BLENDED TEA PRODUCED IN AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT IS A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT . THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE ITA NO . 298/C/2015 9 SUPREME COURT WAS DISMISSED ON MERITS 111 STC (STATUTE) 1998 6.8 RECENTLY THE KOLKATA B ENCH OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER BLENDING OF TEA AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10 B AND SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF MADHU JAYANTHI INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. DCIT . THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF NARENDRA TEA CO. P LTD AND RAJRANI EXPORTS P ITD WAS ALSO DISPOSED OFF VIDE A SINGLE ORDER DT . 20 - 7 - 2012 WHERE IN THE FULL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS HAS HELD T HAT BLENDING OF TEA AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE AND THEREBY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN TH E ABOVE CASES ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10B, 80HHC. IN BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED VS. CIT 269 ITR 232 (CAL) BLENDING OF TEA HAS BEEN HELD TO BE 'MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION' SO AS TO ENTITLE THE A SSESSEE THE BENEFIT O F SECTION 10A/10AA OF THE I T . ACT 6.9 THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE 12 - 3 - 2015 HA D NOT A CCEPTED THE ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT I N THE CASE OF TATA TEA LTD AND GIRNA R INDUSTRIES FOR THE REASON THAT THE D EPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISIONS AND IS ON FURTHER APPEAL . T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED BY THE APEX COURT. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 32 (1 )(IIA) IS FOR ADDITIONAL DEP RECIATION. THIS ALLOWANCE ONLY RESULTS IN ACCELERATING THE DEPRECIATION BENEFIT AND DOES NOT GRANT ANY NEW CONCESSION . ITA NO . 298/C/2015 10 7 FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, AND THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE FOR INTRODUCTION O F SECTION 32(IIA) OF THE ACT , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN INVOK ING HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR DENYING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(IIA). HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12 . 3.2015 PASSED U/S 263. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH , DAY OF JUNE 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( B P JAIN ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 6 TH JUNE 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT , 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN