NTPC TAMILNADU ENERGY COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CIRLCE- 18(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 5022/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116303 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5022/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 NTPC Tamilnadu Energy Company Ltd. Vallur Thermal Power Project P.O. Vellivoyal Chavadi, Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur Dist. Chennai-600103 PAN No.AABCN9916C Vs DCIT Circle – 18 (2) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Agarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. M.K. Pandey, Sr DR Date of hearing: 03/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-6, Delhi dated 15.06.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2013-14. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the claim of depreciation of Rs.25853522/- being 2 50% on certain assets on the ground that the business of the assessee was commenced on 29.11.2012. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a joint venture of NTPC Limited and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and was incorporated with the main objective of construction of power plant for generating electricity. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain as to why depreciation claimed for full year not be restricted to half as the relevant project was commercially operating from 29.11.2012. The assessee filed a detailed reply which was dismissed by the AO who went on to disallow the claim of depreciation by 50% as he was of the firm belief that the assets have been used for less than 180 days. 5. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us the Counsel for the assessee moved an application requesting for the admission for additional evidences the bench called for report from the AO which is as under :- 3 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the additional evidences. We are of the considered view that these additional evidences go to the root of the matter and could not have been fabricated post assessment/ first appellate proceedings as the same pertain to / given by State Government Authorities and National Stock Exchange. Based on these additional evidence we restore the issue to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish these evidences before the AO and the AO is directed to examine / verify the same and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on .07.2023. [ASTHA CHANDRA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .06.2023 *Neha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CITi 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi