DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Showa India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 4276/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4564 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AATIQ AHMED
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANKA MOGIA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4276/DEL/2014 CO NO.54/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2009 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMB E R I N ITA NO. 4 276 /DEL/201 4 CO. NO. 54/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 9 - 1 0 D CIT , CIRCLE - 8 (1) , ROOM NO. 248, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI VS. SHOWA INDIA PVT. LTD. 23 - 32, SECTOR - 58, FARIDABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A A B C E5725G ) SHOWA INDIA PVT. LTD. 23 - 32, SECTOR - 58, FARIDABAD VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8 (1), ROOM NO. 248, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A ABCB7121R ) REVENUE BY: SH RI AATIQ AHMED, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: MS. PRIYANKA MOGIA, CA DATE OF HEARING 2 8 / 0 8 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 6 / 0 9 /201 7 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 8 . 0 5 .201 4 , PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) XI, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143 (3) FOR THE A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0. PAGE 2 OF 11 2. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,21,722/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF WARRANTY EXPENSES.' 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 94,62,769/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS CASH DISCOUNT.' 3. 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. ' 3. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE FIRST ISSUE RELATING TO WARRANTY EXPENSES ARE THAT , THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF POWER STEERING AND BULK OF S ALE IS MADE TO MARUTI UDYOG LTD (MUL). THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 1,46,98,694/ - AS WARRANTY EXPENSES FROM ITS GROSS REC EIPTS . IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING BREAK OF WARRANTY EXPENSES: - WARRANTY DEFECTS CLAIME D BY MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. AND DEDUCTED FROM SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS . RS. 12,76,973/ - PROVISION FOR WARRANTY MADE AT THE RATE OF 1% OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE TURNOVER. RS. 1,34,21,722/ - TOTAL EXPENSES RS. 1,46,98,694/ - PAGE 3 OF 11 4 . AS REGARDS THE EXPENSE S OF RS. 12,76,973/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED PAYMENT ADVISORY RECEIPTS FROM THE CUSTOMERS ; AND FOR THE PROVISION OF WARRANTY , T HE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE CALCULATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PROVISION FOR WARRANTY HAS BEEN DEBITED ALONG WITH THE CO P Y OF LED GER ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAD MADE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY EXPENSE @ 0.50% AS AGAINST @ 0.75% IN THE EARLIER YEAR CLAIMING IT BE ON THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE TURNOVER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY EXPENSES HOLDING THEM TO BE IN THE NATURE OF CONTINGENT LIABILITY. 5 . BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSION WHIC H HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FROM PAGES 2 TO 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN THAT THE AMOUNT FOR PROVISION FOR WARRANTY OF RS. 1,34,21,722/ - WAS INITIALLY MADE @ 1% OF WEIGHTED TURNOVER AND SUCH PROVISION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATCHING CONCEPT , I.E., IF REVENUE I S RECOGNIZED THEN THE COST TO INCUR TO THAT REVENUE ALSO INCLUDES WARRANTY COST WHICH HAS TO BE FULLY PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS. WHEN THE PRODUCT IS SOLD AND THE WARRANTY COST BEING A N INTEGRAL PART OF SALE PRICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH WARRANTY COSTS IN ITS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR OTHERWISE THE MATCHING CONCEPT WILL FAIL. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, T HE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO ACCOUNTING STANDARD S IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO REL IED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROT OR K CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2009) 180 T AXMANN 22 . 6 . THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY EXPENSE HAS BEEN REGULARLY MADE AND THE WARRANTY EXPENSE ESTIMATE HAS BEEN REASSESS BY THE PAGE 4 OF 11 ASSESSEE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. HE OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY EXPENSES HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 0.50% DURING THE YEAR AS COMPARED TO 0.75% IN THE EARLIER YEAR. H E FURTHER NOTED THAT TH E EXCESS PROVISION FOR WARRANTY MADE IN THE PRIOR YEAR S AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 ,44,49,381/ - HAS BEEN REVERSED I N THIS YEAR CONSIDERING TH AT NO CLAIM WAS MADE DURING THE WARRANTY TENURE OF THE PRODUCTS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND NO ADJUSTMENT FOR SUCH REVERSAL WAS MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN A.Y. 2012 - 13. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THA T THE PROVISION OF WARRANTY EXPENSES HA VE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATION K EEPING IN MIND THE ANTICIPATED LIABILITIES LIKELY TO ARISE IN THE FUTURE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ALLOWED THE SAID EXPENSES U/S 37(1). 7 . BEFORE US, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ; WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PROVISION OF DETAILS/EXPENSES, EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ALLOW THE CLAIM FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROTOR K CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT ( SURPA ) . HOWEVER HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS ALL THE DETAILS H A VE BEEN PLACED AND DULY CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE , THE R E IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SET - ASIDE THE MATTER BEFORE THE AO IN THIS YEAR . 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT FI NDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , WHO IS INTO MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF ELECTRIC POWER STEERING AND EMISSION RELATED PARTS MAKES BULK OF SALE TO MARUTI UDGYOG LTD. IT PAGE 5 OF 11 PROVIDES STANDARD WARRANTY TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHICH FORMS I NTEGRAL PART OF THE SALE PRICE. THE WARRANTY CAN BE INVO KED IN THE EVENT OF ANY ELECTRIC POWER STEERING BECOME S DEFECTIVE WITHIN THE 24 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ACTUAL USE OR THE VEHICLE / CAR HAS RUN FOR 40 ,000 KMS. , WHICHEVER IS EARLIER . SIMILARLY, IN RESP ECT OF EMISSION RELATED PARTS THE WARRANTY WAS FOR 36 MONTHS OR VEHICLE RUNNING FOR 80 ,000 KMS . , WHICHEVER IS EARLIER . THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF SALE HAS BEEN MAKING THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY @ 1 % OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE TURNOVER AFTER ADJUS TING THE CLAIM RECEIPT S AND PAID DURING THE YEAR. THE EXCESS WARRANTY PROVISION AGAINST WHICH NO CLAIM IS MADE DURING THE WARRANTY TENURE HAS BEEN REVERSED AT THE END . IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REDUCED THE PERCENTAGE ON PROVISION FO R WARRANTY TO 0.50% IN THIS YEAR , WHICH OSTENSIBLY REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RE - VALUATING AND MAKING PROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE WARRANTY EXPENSES. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROTOR K CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) UPHELD THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF THE HISTORICAL TREND INDICATES THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF SOPHISTICATED GOODS WERE BEING MANUFACTURED IN THE PA ST AND IF THE FACTS ESTABLISHED THAT DEFECTS EXISTED IN SOME OF THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD, THEN THE PROVISION MADE FOR WARRANTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH SOPHISTICATED GOODS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS UNDER SECTION 37. IT WOULD ALL DEPEND ON THE DATA SYSTEMATICALLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS , THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT CLEARLY REC OGNIZES THAT IF THE PROVISION MADE FOR WARRANTY HAS BEEN MADE ON SOME PROPER ESTIMATE, THEN IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS BUSINESS EXPENSE FROM THE G ROSS RECEIPT U/S 37. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY EXPENSES HAS BEEN MADE ON SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATION K EEPING IN MIND THE ANTICIPAT ED CLAIM WHICH IS LIKELY TO PAGE 6 OF 11 ARISE IN FUTURE . HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ELABORATED AS WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA FOR SUCH ESTIMATION AND HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS EVALUATING THE WARRANTY EXPENSES BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE. ALL THE DETAILS OF WARRANTY EXPENSES DEBITED AND REVERSED BACK NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED SO AS TO SEE , WHETHER THE ESTIMATION FOR THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT OR N OT AND WHETHER THERE IS ANY EXCESS PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE YEAR. WE FIND THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FO LLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROTOR K CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT . IN THIS YEAR ALSO, WE ARE REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF THE PROVISIONS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEAR S AND ALSO IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR S AND ALSO TO SEE WHETHER SUCH A PROVISION MADE H AS SOME RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION AND NO EXCESS PROVISION IS BEING MADE WITH THIS DIRECTION, GROUND NO. 1 AS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9 . NOW COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE AS RAISED IN THE GROUND NO. 2 WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS, IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AO HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT NO MATERIAL EVIDENCES WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF CASH DISCOUNT EXPENSES CLAIMED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN DETAILS SUCH AS TOTAL AMOUNT OF BILL, DAT E OF BILL, DESCRIPTION OF GOODS SUPPLIED , T HEREFORE, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CORRECTNESS OF AMOUNT ; THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED ; AND PAGE 7 OF 11 WHAT RATE AND FOR WH ICH PERIOD IT HAS BEEN GIVEN, IS NOT VERIFIABLE . H E THUS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NO T FILED PROPER EVIDENCE AND ACCORDINGLY , HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CASH DISCOUNT OF RS. 94,62,769/ - . THE ASSESSEE S CASE BEFORE THE AO HAD BEE N THAT THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIES MATERIAL TO ITS CUSTOMERS FOR 30 DAYS CREDIT AND IF SOMEONE MAKES THE PAY MENT WITHIN THAT TERM , THEN CASH DISCOUNT AT STATE BANK OF INDIA S PLR RATE IS GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS O N PRO TERM BASIS. HOWEVER, IF THE PAYMENT IS DELAYED THEN INTEREST O N THE SAME RATE IS CHARGED FROM THE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT FOR F.Y. 2008 - 09 AND ALSO FILED THE DETAILS OF ITS MAIN CUSTOMER , M/S. MARUTI UDYOG LTD. SHOWING PAYMENTS MADE AFTER DEDUCTION OF CASH DISCOUNT @ 12.2 % . 10. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD NOT DOUBTED THE LIABILITY OF CASH DISCOUNT EXPENSES BUT HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT VERIFIABLE FROM THE DETAILS , WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED THE CASH DISCOUNTS CORRECTLY AND BY APPLYING CORRECT RATE OF INTER EST AFTER CONSIDERING THE PERIOD OF PAYMENT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE MUL HAS PROVIDED THE STATEMENT OF CLAIMS OF CASH DISCOUNTS OF ITS PURCHASES ON WEEKLY BASIS IN WHICH THE PARTI CULARS OF INVOICE ALONG WITH THE DATE, AMOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT DUE WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE AO. HE NOTED THAT THESE DETAILS CLEARLY REFLECT THAT CASH DISCOUNT IS CLAIMED ON THE INVOICES WERE WITHIN THE 30 DAYS . ACCORDINGLY, HE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM AS PER THE DISCUSSION APPEARING AT PARA 9.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. 11. THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ; WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE PAGE 8 OF 11 ORDER OF THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) BUT FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEAR HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 1 2 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, IT IS SEEN THAT , THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE CASH DISCOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHICH PAYS THE DUES BEFORE 30 DAYS WHICH IS CALCULATED AT STATE BANK OF INDIA S PLR RATE . IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM CERTAIN DETAILS REGARDING MAIN CUSTOMER MUL HAD ALSO BEEN GIVEN. HOWEVER AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THESE DETAILS DOES NOT REFLECT THE AMOUNT BILL ED , DATE OF BILL, DESCRIPTION OF GOODS SUPPLIED , ETC. THOUGH FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) BUT IT IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE MUL FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD . ALL THESE DETAILS AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO HAS TO BE SEEN. WE FIND THAT EXACTLY SAME ISSUE HA D COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , WHEREIN THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE QUANTUM OF CASH DISCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS YEAR ALSO RELYING UPON THE SAME DIRECTION , WE SET A SIDE TH IS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DETAILS OF CASH DISCOUNT AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE CUSTOMERS WHILE MAKIN G THE PAYMENT BEFORE 30 DAYS HAVE DEDUCTED THE CASH DISCOUNT, THEN SAME IS TO BE ALLOWED. WITH THIS DIRECTION THE G ROUND NO. 2 IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WHO SHALL PROVIDE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PAGE 9 OF 11 1 3 . IN THE CROSS OB JECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DCIT CIRCLE 8(1) (LD . ASSESSING OFFICER) IS BAD, BOTH IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ORDER THE LD, CIT(A) . 2.1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE FAILED IN APPRECIATING THAT THE WARRANTY EXPENSES, AS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ARE IN THE NATURE OF A DETERMINED LIABILITY AND NOT A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. 2.2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE PARTICULARS OF THE EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENTATION FURNISHED BY THE RESPONDENT TO VERIFY THE CASH DISCOUNT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED, BOTH ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, IN MAKING RECTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 154. 3.1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING RECTIFICATION U/S 154 ON THE BASIS OF HALF MARGIN REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF AUDIT. 3.2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DETERMINING TOTAL LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS, 47,82,69,969 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS. 52,96,42,067, 3.3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED, BOTH ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, IN HOLDING THAT ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION ARE OF THE NATURE OF ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND THUS DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,54,354. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT AND ASSE SSEE PRAYS THAT SUITABLE COSTS SHOULD BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 10 OF 11 5. ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND NOTWITHSTANDING EACH OTHER. 6. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUND S OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 7. ANY CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, TO WHICH THE RESPONDENT MAY BE ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW IN PURSUANCE OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION, OR OTHERWISE, THUS MAY BE GRANTED. 14 . SO FAR AS THE GROUND NO. 3 IS CONCERNED THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED, THEREFORE, IT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. AS REGARDS THE OTHER GROUNDS IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THESE GROUNDS WILL BE INFRUCTUOUS , BECAUSE THEY ARE MAINLY IN SUPPOR T OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 1 5 . THUS, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS , THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE; WHEREAS ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMI SSED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 6 . 0 9 .201 7. S D / - S D / - ( G.D. AGRAWAL ) (AMIT SHUKLA) (PRESIDENT , ITAT ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DATED: 0 6 . 0 9 .2017 NARENDER PAGE 11 OF 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 04 .0 9 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05 . 0 9 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 7 . 9 .2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7 . 9 .2017 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 7 . 9 .2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.