Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kanpur V. M/s. Iqbal Leathers Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 472/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 47223714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS GARG
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.472/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 2005 DY.C.I.T. - 4, KANPUR. VS. M/S IQBAL LEATHERS LTD., D - 125, DEFENCE COLONY, JAJUMAU, KANPUR. PAN:AAACI3280R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI VIKAS GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 04/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 / 04/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 28/05/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ALLOWING EXCESS DEPRECIATION @25% ON OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRIC FITTINGS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED I N LAW AND FACTS IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IGNORING THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY TAXATION LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 AND CIRCULAR NO.2/2006 DATED 17.02.2006 ISSUED BY CBDT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TAKE ADDIT IONAL GROUND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGARDING THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE VIDE GROUND NO. 1, WE FIND THAT IT IS HELD BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE TO OFFICE EQUIPMENT BEING AIR CONDITIONER ETC. WOULD BE THAT APPLICABLE TO THE BLOCK PERTAINING TO PLANT & MACHINERY AND NOT F URNITURE AND FITTINGS. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO SEVERAL JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT SHOW AS TO HOW THESE JUDGMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 5. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT [2012] 324 ITR 49. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE D ATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR