ITA NO. 4259/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4259/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 M/S INFOMERICS VALUATION AND RATING PVT. LTD., FLAT NO. 108, GOLF APARTMENT, MAHARISHI RAMANNA MARG, SUJAN SINGH PARK, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACV1928K) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. RAJNISH AGGARWAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 9.7.20 10 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORDER REGARDING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BOTH THE COUNSEL FAIRLY AGREED THAT IDENTICAL IS SUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1 462/DEL/2009 FOR ITA NO. 4259/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 2 A.Y. 2004-05 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED TH E ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEF ORE US SOME ELECTRICITY BILLS PERTAINING TO FLAT NO. 104 WHICH WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEV ER, THESE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND L OWER AUTHORITIES NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROU GH. WE ALSO NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF CLAIMED BEFORE T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT SEVERAL GROUP COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATES CONCERNS OPERATED FROM THE SAME PREMISES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE PREMISES, ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAI M WHOLE OF THE DEPRECIATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILES OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE FRESH DOCUMENTS BEING SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPRECIATION ASSESSEE COMPAN Y IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . 4. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENT, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO ADD TH AT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR ITA NO. 4259/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 3 DISALLOWANCE OF ` 199400/- PAYMENT TO ROC AS FEES TO INCREASE THE AUTHORIZED SHARE CAPITAL BY HOLDING IT CAPITAL IN N ATURE. 6. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEES COUNSEL FAIRL Y AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISI ONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BROOKE BOND INDIA VS. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 798 AND PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. VS. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 79. ACCORDINGLY, ON THIS ISSUE WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DECI DE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAN DS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/11/2010. SD/- SD/- [A.D. JAIN] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 16/11/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES