CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

ITA 313/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3494 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAUL J DHK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Capital receipt
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH B , JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE : SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 313/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY PVT.LTD G-51, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA TONK ROAD,JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 6(3) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AADCC 9647 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPO NDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR JAIN, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAUL, JCIT-DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 07/01/2020 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/03/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 09-01-2019 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN SUSTAINING ACTION OF THE AO OF NOT TREATING RS. 30, 19,569/- BEING COST ON CIVIL ENGINEERING WORK CARRIED OUT FO R LAYING FOUNDATION OF SOLAR POWER PANELS AND PROPORTIONATE INTEREST THEREON, AS COST OF SOLAR POWER PLANT AND THEREBY C URTAILING ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 2 THE ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION ON SOLAR POWER PLAT BY R S. 1,16,103/-. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN SUSTAINING APPLICATION OF 3.02% RATE OF DEPRECIATIO N ON EXPENSES AGGREGATING RS. 30,19,569/- INCURRED ON CI VIL ENGINEERING WORK AND PROPORTIONATE INTEREST THEREON (SUPRA) WITHOUT ASSIGNING SPECIFIC HEAD OF ASSET ITEM TO TH ESE EXPENSES. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AGAIN ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF TREATIN G THE INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSITS DURING PREOPERATI VE PERIOD (I.E. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION OF SOLAR POWER) AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF TREATING THE S AME AS AN ITEM OF REDUCTION IN COST OF PLANT. 2.1 THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REGA RDING DISALLOWANCE OF HIGHER REDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS FOR LAYING FOUNDATION OF SOLAR POWER PANELS. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE GE NERATION OF SOLAR POWER. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 8-09-2012 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 4,65,24,365/-. DURING COURSE OF S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INSTALLED THE SOLAR PLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS BECOME OPERATIONAL IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2012. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 7.69% FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS ON PLAN T AND MACHINERY ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 3 WHICH INCLUDES THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 30,19,569/- O N CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE COST OF CIVI L ENGINEERING WORKS IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION OF HIGHER RATE AS APP LICABLE ON SOLAR POWER PLANT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO HAS ALLOWED DEPRECIAT ION @ 3.02% OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 2.4 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS WOULD BE PART OF COST OF INSTALLA TION OF SOLAR PLANT AS IT IS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THE FIXING OF SOLAR POWE R PANELS TO EARTH AND OTHER ELECTRICAL FITTINGS FORMING PART OF THE SOLAR POWER PLANT. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS IS CARRIED OUT SPECIFICALLY FOR INSTALLATION OF THE SOLAR POWER PL ANT AND IT HAS NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN GENERATION OF SOLAR POWER. THE LD.AR THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS WOULD BE PART O F THE COST OF INSTALLATION OF SOLAR POWER PLANT AND THEREFORE, EL IGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AS APPLICABLE ON THE SOLAR POWER PLANT AND NOT ON BUIL DING AS APPLIED BY THE AO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS K.K. ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 4 ENTERPRISES [2014] 227 TAXMAN (MAGZ) 181 (RAJ.). TH E LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS REITERATED ITS VIEW IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MEHRU ELECTRICALS & MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (P) LTD. [2016] 388 ITR 169 (RAJ.). THUS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS K.K. ENTERPRISES (SUPRA), THE DEPRECIATION ON COST OF CIVIL ENGINEER ING WORKS IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE SOLAR PLANTS AND IS ALLOWABLE AT THE RATE AS APPLICABLE ON THE SOLAR PLANT ITSELF. 2.5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT THE FACTS OF BIFURCATED COST OF SOLAR PLANT AS WELL AS CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREBY THE AO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF SOLAR POWER PLA NT AT A HIGHER RATE AS APPLICABLE ON PLANT AND MACHINERY WHEREAS THE DEPRE CIATION IN RESPECT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS WAS ALLOWED AS APPLICABLE O N BUILDING. THUS THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 2.6 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SOLAR POWER PLANT WHICH INCLUDES T HE COST OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS OF RS. 30,19,569/-. THUS THE AO W AS OF THE VIEW THAT ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPRECIATION IN RES PECT OF COST OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS AS THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRE CIATION AS APPLICABLE ON BUILDING AND NOT THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON PLA NT AND MACHINERY. THE AO ACCORDINGLY BIFURCATED TOTAL COST OF SOLAR POWER PLANT AND SEPARATED THE COST OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS AND ALLOWED DEP RECIATION ON THE SAME AT THE RATE AS APPLICABLE ON BUILDING AND CONSEQUEN TLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 70,508/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT DI SPUTED THE FACT THAT SOIL LEVELING AND OTHER CIVIL WORKS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF SOLAR POWER PANELS. TH EREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCESS OF INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLAR POWER PLANT. THU S THE COST OF SAID WORK CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR POWER PLANT AND ENTIRE COST OF SOLAR POWER PLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIAT ION AS APPLICABLE FOR PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS K.K. ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN PARA 5 AND 6 AS UNDER:- 5. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED. 6. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS HAS BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO.604/201 2, DECIDED ON 29.1.2013, IN CIT V . PARRY ENGG. AND ELECTRONICS (P.) LTD . IN THE CASE AFORESAID HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT 'WIN DMILL WOULD REQUIRE A SCIENTIFICALLY DESIGNED MACHINERY IN ORDE R TO HARNESS THE WIND ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 6 ENERGY TO THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL. SUCH DEVICE HAS TO BE FITTED AND MOUNTED ON A CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPPED WITH ELEC TRIC FITTINGS IN ORDER TO TRANSMIT THE ELECTRICITY SO GENERATED. SUCH CIVI L STRUCTURE AND ELECTRIC FITTINGS, THEREFORE, IT CAN BE WELL IMAGINED, WOULD BE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED. THUS, SUCH CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND ELEC TRIC FITTING WOULD HAVE NO USE OTHER THAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNCTIONI NG OF THE WINDMILL. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT CAN BE EASILY IMAGINED THAT W INDMILL CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT APPROPRIATE INSTALLATION AND ELECT RIFICATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE INSTALLATION OF WINDMILL AND THE CIVIL S TRUCTURE AND THE ELECTRIC FITTINGS ARE SO CLOSELY INTERCONNECTED AND LINKED AS TO FORM THE COMMON PLANT. AS ALREADY NOTED, THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION OF 80 PER CENT ON RENEW ABLE ENERGY DEVISES INCLUDING WINDMILL AND ANY SPECIALLY DESIGNED DEVIS E, WHICH RUNS ON WINDMILL. THE CIVIL STRUCTURE AND THE ELECTRIC FITT ING, EQUIPMENTS ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE WINDMILL AND CANNOT BE SEPAR ATED FROM THE SAME. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON SUCH INVESTMENT WAS, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY ALLOWED.' ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE BINDING PRECEDENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT THE CASE OF CIT VS K.K. ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) , WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS DELETED. 3.1 THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING T HE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS DURING PRE-CO MMENCEMENT PERIOD AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3.2 THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PRO VISION OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON FDRS AND TRANSFERRED THE SAME TO PLANT AND MACHINERY AND THEREBY REDUCED THE COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY WHI CH IS SOLAR POWER ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 7 PLANT. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INTEREST ON FIXE D DEPOSITS IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,19,263/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3.3 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE MADE WITH THE BANK FOR FURNISHING THE BANK GUARANTEE TO IREDA, A CENTRAL GOVT. AGENCY, AS PER THE CONDITION S FOR GRANTING SANCTION TO SET UP SOLAR POWER PLANT. THEREFORE, WH EN THE FIXED DEPOSITS HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE SETTING UP OF SOLAR POW ER PLANT THEN THE INTEREST ON SAID FIXED DEPOSITS FOR PRE-OPERATIVE PERIOD WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AND WOULD REDUCE THE COST OF SOLAR POWER PLANT. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SAID INTEREST CANNOT BE TREATED AS REVENUE RECEIPT OR INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS FACOR PO WER PLANT [2016] 237 TAXMAN 0613/380 (DEL) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF IN DIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD VS ITO [2009) 181 TAXMAN 0249 (DEL). 3.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 8 3.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY FILED BEFORE THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS TO PROVIDE THE BANK GUARANTEE TO IREDA FOR SETTING UP OF SOLAR POWER PLANT. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRO VIDING BANK GUARANTEE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO MAKE FIXED DEPOSITS WIT H INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK. THUS THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE MADE TO AVAIL TH E BANK GUARANTEE TO BE PROVIDED TO IREDA FOR GETTING LICENSE OF SOLAR P OWER PLANT. THEREFORE, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT FIXED DEPO SITS ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH SETTING UP OF SOLAR POWER PLANT. THUS THE INTEREST EARNED DURING PRE-OPERATIVE PERIOD WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE COST OF PROJECT. SIMILAR CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONGWITH VARIOUS DECISIONS ON THIS POINT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE DECISIONS ON THE POINT HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS FACOR POWER PLANT (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. V. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172(SC) HAS HELD IN PARA 11 TO 13 AS UNDER:- 11. FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TES T THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE EMPLOYED IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY WHICH IS TAK EN UP FOR SETTING UP OF THE ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 9 BUSINESS AND THE FUNDS WHICH ARE GARNERED ARE INEXT RICABLY CONNECTED TO THE SETTING UP OF THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, FINDIN GS OF FACT HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND HAV E BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THA T THE FUNDS WERE INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED WITH THE SETTING UP OF THE P OWER PLANT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BE EN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY PERVERSITY IN SUCH FINDING AND, THEREFORE, THE FACT UAL FINDINGS HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS THOSE ACCEPTED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL WHICH IS THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY IN THE INCOME TAX REGIME. THAT BE ING THE CASE, THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD. ( SUPRA ) WOULD SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN APPLYING THE SAME. 12. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS DECISION, WE WOULD, HOWEV ER, LIKE TO COMMENT UPON A CONTENTION WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER MADE AN OBSERVATION IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WH ICH GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT IF FUNDS WERE OBTAINED THROUGH RAISING SHARE C APITAL AS DISTINCT FROM BORROWED FUNDS, THEN THE QUESTION OF INTEREST DERIV ED ON PLACING THOSE FUNDS IN A FIXED DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES' WOULD NOT ARISE. SUCH AN IMPRESSION OUGHT NOT TO BE GATHERED FROM TH E TRIBUNAL'S DECISION BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. ( SUPRA ) HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT WHETHER THE FUNDS ARE RAI SED BY ISSUE OF SHARES AND DEBENTURES OR THROUGH BORROWING WOULD NO T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLES SET OUT THEREUNDER. THE PRINCIPLE BE ING THAT IF THE CAPITAL OF A COMPANY IS FRUITFULLY UTILISED INSTEAD OF KEEPING I T IDLE, THE INCOME THUS GENERATED, WILL BE OF A REVENUE NATURE AND NOT ACCR ETION OF CAPITAL. 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS A FINDING OF FACT TH AT THE MONEY PLACED IN THE FIXED DEPOSIT WAS INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH T HE SETTING UP OF THE POWER PLANT. THUS, THE REVENUE GENERATED ON ACCOUNT OF IN TEREST ON THE SAID FIXED DEPOSITS WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL RECEIP T AND NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT. THIS CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THIS PRI NCIPLE AND NOT ON THE BASIS THAT THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS WAS THROUGH RAISING OF SHARE CAPITAL AND NOT THROUGH BORROWINGS. HENCE IF THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE MADE TO AVAIL THE BANK GUARANTEE FOR SETTING UP OF THE SOLAR POWER PLANT THEN IT IS INEX TRICABLY LINKED WITH THE SETTING OF SOLAR POWER PLANT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE I NTEREST ON SAID FIXED ITA NO.313/JP/2019 M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY VS ITO , WARD - 6(3)JAIPUR 10 DEPOSITS WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT THE REVENUE RECEIPT. FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS FACOR POWER LTD. (SUPRA), WE DEC IDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THU S THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/03/202 0. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02/03/ 2020 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY PVT. LTD. JAIPUR 2 IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.313/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR