ACIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar V. Orissa State Beverages Corpn. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

ITA 403/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90823 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P VENUGOPAL RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK [ , . . , BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , J M & SHRI B.P.JAIN , A M ./ ITA NO. 403 /CTK/201 3 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), BHUBANESWAR VS. ORISSA STATE BEVERAGES CORP. LIMITED, 9 TH FLOOR, IDCO TOWERS, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A ACO 6507 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND ./ CO NO. 65 /CTK/2013 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR :200 9 - 10 ) ORISSA STATE BEVERAGES CORP. LIMITED, 9 TH FLOOR, IDCO TOWERS, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), BHUBANE SWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AACO 6507 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K.NATH [ /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.VENUGOPAL RAO / DATE OF HEARI NG : 2 5 TH MAY , 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 7 TH MA Y ,2015 / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV (J.M) : TH E REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - II, BHUBANESWAR DATED 26 - 03 - 2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 . T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS . : - ITA NO. 403 /2013 CO NO. 65 /2013 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RS. 25,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY THE IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REPAY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5.00 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIVILEGE FEE WHICH WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. C1T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT R ULES. 2. SINCE THE REVENUES APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT BOTH THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN TH E APPEAL OF REVENUE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04, 200 4 - 05, 2 006 - 07, 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 , RESPECTIVELY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) , AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE , HAS DISPOSED OF BOTH THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR . 4 . LEARNED DR DID NOT ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENT. 5 . HAVING CAREFULL Y EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED BOTH THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ITA NO. 403 /2013 CO NO. 65 /2013 3 ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL . THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : - 3. BEFORE ME, SRI B.K.MOHAPTRA, FCA PRODUCED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH DTD.01.02.2013 IN THE CASE OF THIS VERY APPELLANT. THIS ORDER IS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER COVERING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 TO 2008 - 09 (EXCEPT ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005 - 06 ) ON ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 (DEPARTMENT'S CROSS APPEAL). I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE ORDER OF THE ITAT (PARAGRAPH - 6 SPREAD OVER PAGES 21 TO 25). THE ISSUE OF SECURITY DEPOSITS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPH 6.1 AND THE ISSUE OF PRIVILEGE FEES AND DEPRECIATION HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPH - 6. WHEREAS THE ITAT HAS DECIDED IN THE ISSUES OF TAXABILITY SECURITY DEPOSITS AND THE PRIVILEGE FEES, THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE APPE LLANT. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH ON THESE THREE ISSUES EVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WHICH IS UNDER APPEAL. SINCE NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY THE REVENUE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUO U S AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 7 / 05 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( B. P. JAIN ) ( ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 2 7 /0 5 / 201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS ITA NO. 403 /2013 CO NO. 65 /2013 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT , CUTTACK 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//