Acit, Kota V. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,

ITA 359/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7214 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANURAG KALAVATIYA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA AND SHRI N.L.KALRA) ITA NO. 359/ JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PAN: AAALK 0390D THE ACIT, VS. M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI CIRCLE- 2, KOTA ITAWA, KOTA (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ANURAG KALAVATIYA DATE OF HEARING: 04-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: ITA NO. 372/ JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PAN: AAALK 0391C THE ITO , VS. M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BARAN ITAWA, KOTA (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D/K. MEENA ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ANURAG KALAVATIYA DATE OF HEARING: 07-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04-11-2011 ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEALS AGAINST TWO DIFFE RENT ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA DATED 11-02-2011 AND 28-02-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. 2 2.1 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE CASES IS THAT TH E LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION THOUGH THE AO HAS NOT ALLOWED DEPRECIATION BECAUSE THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET IS CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF IN COME. 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ABOVE REFER RED ISSUE STANDS DECIDED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DAT ED 6 TH JAN. 2011 IN THE CASE OF ITO, BARAN VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BA RAN. WHILE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMIT I, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. 1. CIT VS. SHETH MANILAL RANCHHODDAS VISHRAM BHAVAN TRUST, 198 ITR 598 (HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF .) 2. ESCORTS LTD. & OTHERS, 199 ITR 43 (SC) 3. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX (EXEMP.) VS. GIRDHARI LAL SHEWN ARAIN TANTA TRUST, 199 ITR 215 4. CIT VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, GAJSINGHPUR, 227 CTR 79 2.3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISIONS OF HON 'BLE HIGH COURTS, WE HAVE HELD THAT DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE EVEN IF THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT ON ACQUISITION OF ASSETS IS CONSIDERED AS APP LICATION OF INCOME. FOLLOWING THAT ORDERS, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION. 3 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04-11 -2011. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED; 04/11/2011 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, KOTA 2. THE ITO , WARD- BARAN 3. M/S. KRIHSI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, ITAWA, KOT A 4. M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BARAN 5. THE LD. CIT 6. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 359 & 372/ JP/2011) BY ORDER A.R, ITAT, JAIPUR 4 5