DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Subros Limited, New Delhi

ITA 4550/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 455020114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEENA JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SABHARWALAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENC H BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.4550/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE 9(1), NEW DELHI V/S . M/S SUBROS LIMITED, LGF, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI [PAN : AABCS 3910 P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJEEV SABHARWAL,AR REVENUE BY SMT. VEENA JOSHI, DR DATE OF HEARING 29-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 -05-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 12.10.2011 BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 28.06.2011 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XII, NEW DEL HI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON JIGS, FURNITURE AND MOULDS @30% AS THE SAME ARE NOT USED IN RUBBER OR PLASTIC GOODS FACTORY. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FORGO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THA T E-RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 38,40,31,820/- FILED ON 30.09.2008 BY THE ASSESSEE, MANUFACTURING AUTOMOTIVE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS, WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ITA N O.4550 /DEL./2011 2 ACT). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECI ATION TO THE TUNE OF ` `31,94,544/- @ 30% ON JIGS, FIXTURES AND PLASTIC MO ULDS. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, DE PRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED @30% AS PER TABLE OF RATES MENTIONED IN APPENDIX-I OF THE IT RULES,1962 FOR MOULDS USED IN RUBBER AND PLASTIC GOODS FACTORIES A T ITEM(VII) UNDER THE HEADING MACHINERY AND PLANT. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JIGS ,FIXTURES AND PLASTIC MOULDS WERE NOT USED IN RUBBER OR PLAST IC GOODS FACTORIES AND ACCORDINGLY, RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION @15% INSTE AD OF 30% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISIO NS OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NOS.5863& 5864/D/1997 FOR THE AYS1993-94 AND 1994-95,ITA. NO.3475/DEL/2008 FOR THE AY 2005-06 ; AND I.T.A. NO.4711/DEL./09 FOR THE AY2006-07,ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD. DR SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ITA T VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 24.8.2010 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 200 7-08 IN ITA NO.3118/DEL./2010 ;ORDER DATED 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 FOR THE AY 2006-07 IN I.T.A. NO.4711/DEL./09 ; AND ORDER DATED 24 TH JULY, 2009 IN I.T.A. NO.3475/D/2008 FOR THE AY 2005-06, UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION DATED 16 TH DECEMBER, 2002 IN I.T.A. NOS. 5863 AND 5864/D/1997 THE AYS 1993-94 AND 1994-95. THE LD.AR ADDED THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT DI SMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE AYS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 5.4.2011. IN I.T.A. NOS.1076/2011 AND 432/2011, TAX EFFECT BEING BELOW THE LIMIT OF ` `10 LACS FOR FILING THE APPEALS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO AFORESAID DECISIONS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING ITA N O.4550 /DEL./2011 3 YEARS. INDISPUTABLY, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAI LING IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S IN THE AYS 1993-94, 1994- 95, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND THE REVENUE H AVING NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFER ENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE.IN VIEW THEREOF, GROUND N O.1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, T HIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 7. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US . 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE 9(1), NEW DELHI 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI 5. DR, ITAT,G BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT