M/s Big Alliance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4414/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97145 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDER MAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR MATTA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 4414/ DEL/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 BIG ALLIANCE PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, B - 2/13, PASCHIM VIHAR, WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI - 63 (PAN: AAACN5325O ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AJAY KUMAR MATTA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAVINDER MAINI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 08. 07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.09.2015 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - IV HAS GROSSLY ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION OF THE COST OF THE SHOPS SOLD. II. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE SHOPS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT ARE BUSINESS ASSETS AS WELL AS DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. III. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BY NOT GIVING A FINDING THA THE SHOPS WERE LONG TERM ASSETS. IV. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BY NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND BAD BOTH ON FACTS & MERITS OF THE CASE. V. THAT THE ABO VE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2 VI. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR FOREGO ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SOLD TWO SHOPS FOR RS. 15 LAKHS. WHILE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, IT HAS CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION. THIS BENEFIT OF INDEXATION WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHOPS WERE DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED VIDE PARA 5 .4 OF HIS ORDER. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE US WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE SHOPS WERE INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS, NO DEPRECIAT ION WAS CLAIMED AND THEY WERE NOT HELD AS A STOCK IN TRADE . T HEREFORE , THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS LONG TERM ASSETS AND THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND REPORT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED APPEARS TO BE VERY SIMPLE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE SHOPS WERE SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS ON WHICH NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED, A N D AL LOWED. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS NOTHING B U T CAPITAL ASSET. IF THE ASSETS ARE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 36 MONTHS, IT IS TREATED AS LONG TERM ASSETS. WHEN THE ASSETS SOLD AS LONG TERM ASSESTS, THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. HENCE , GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 N D S E P T E M B E R , 2015. S D / - S D / - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 N D S E P T E M B E R , 2015. RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI