ADDL CIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI V. SURASHTRA FUELS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4325/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2100 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K R DAS
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI R.V.EASWAR, SR. V.P. AND R.K.PANDA, A M ITA NO. 4325/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 3(3) V. SURASHTRA FUELS P.LT D., AAYAAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, 93C, MITTAL TOWER, N ARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. MUMBAI-21. PA NO.AAACS 7271 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.R.DAS RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER R.V.EASWAR, SR. V.P. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.3.2009 OF LD CIT (A) MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT DEPRECIATION @ 80% ON MAC HINERY CLAIMED AS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND @ 100% ON MACHINERY CLAIMED AS ENERGY SAVING DEVICE. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 2. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) THAT WHI LE DECIDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT BEFOR E US ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT YEAR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE FAC TS AND NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY ARE ALSO THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MAY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (R.V.EASWAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR. VICE PRESIDEN T DATED 14 TH MAY, 2010. PARIDA 2 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A)-XXXII CONCERNED. 4. THE LD CIT-3` CONCERNED. 5. THE D.R. TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT