ACIT, Cuttack V. Paradeep Post Trust, Paradeep

ITA 437/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 43722114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: N C AGASTI
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM, AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM ITA NO. 437 AND 438/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05) ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK. VERSUS PARADEEP PORT TRUST, PARADEEP PAN: AAALP 0055 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI N.C.AGASTI, AR DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.04.2012 ORDER SHRI K. K.GUPTA, AM : THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS BOTH DATED 25.8.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE AYS 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 RAISING THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUND: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DIRECT FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION @25% ON RAILWAYS AND ROLLING STOCK TREATING THE SAME AS PLANT AND MACHINERYAS AGAINST DEPRECIATION OF 10% ALLOWED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS TREATING THE SAME AS BUILDING . 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DT.20.5.2011 IN ITA NOS.99/CTK/2011 AND 114/CTK/2011. THE LEARNED CIT - DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE ABOVE FACT BUT HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL, WE F IND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE STATED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH, WHEREIN IN PARAGRAPH THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 BY OBSERVI NG IN THEIR ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 24 THEREOF, AS UNDER : ITA NO.437 AND 438/CTK/2011 2 24. THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED OF THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS FINDING THAT THEY ARE NOT PLANT AND MACHINERY. BUT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ADMITTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE FIXED ASSETS SERVE SOME SPECIAL PURPOSE OF THE WORKING AND THEREBY THEY ARE CONSIDERED AS PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE WORKING PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DR. B.VENKATRAO (243 ITR 82), CCI(ADMN) V,. VISWESARAYYA IRON & STEEL LTD, KARNATAKA (199 ITR 98) AND KALINGA TUBES LTD V. CIT (96 ITR 20). IN THE LIGHT OF THE DICTUMS STATED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS SUBSTANTIATED AND HENCE FOUND ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AT 15% ON THE FIXED ASSETS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. FACTS UNDISPUTEDLY BEING SIMILAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING FOR ALL OWANCE OF DEPRECIATION @25% ON RAILWAYS AND ROLLING STOCK TREATING THE SAME AS PLANT AND MACHINERY BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APP EALS OF THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 11.04.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK. 2. THE RESPONDENT: PARADEEP PORT TRUST, PARADEEP 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.