Senthil Energy Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore V. ITO, Corp Ward -4, Coimbatore

ITA 581/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5787 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wrong claim; Set aside
• Section: 48

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI , . , $ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.581/CHNY/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) M/S. SENTHIL ENERGY PVT.LTD. 6 TH FLOOR, SENTHIL TOWERS, AVINASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 018. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-4, COIMBATORE. PAN: AASCS 7231G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. N.V.BALAJI, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SURESH PERIASAMY,JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .04.2021 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, COIMBATORE DATED 21. 01.2019 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE. 2. A) THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE EARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN DENYING THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON WINDMILLS INSTALLED PRIOR TO 01.04.2012. 2 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 B) THE HONBIE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE TERM INSTAILED IS D IFFERENT FROM ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AND THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN NEW APPENDIX IS ONLY INSTALLED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS AS MAY BE ADDUCED AT TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED BEF ORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO, A) REVERSE THE ORDER OF HONBLE CIT(A) DENYING THE BENEFIT OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON WINDMILL INSTALLED PRIOR TO 0I.04.2012. B) GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON SUCH WINDMILL AT THE RATE OF 80 %, AND; C) PASS SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AS THE HONB IE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM FIT TO RENDE R JUSTICE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING POWER AND ENERGY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 28.09.2015 DECLARING LOSS OF ` 4,53,11,195/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND BOOK PROFIT OF ` 1,56,45,624/- U/S.115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED USED WINDMILLS INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2012 AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 80%, AS PER PRE-AMENDED APPENDIX-I. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINI ON THAT DEPRECIATION ON WINDMILLS PURCHASED AND INSTALLED O N OR AFTER 3 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 01.04.2012 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 15% BUT NOT 80% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED EXCE SS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO ` 4,41,26,837/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ASUNDER:- 4. EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON WIND MILLS:- ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT DEPRECIATION ON USED WIND MILLS PURCHASED DURING THE F.Y.2013-14 HA S BEEN CLAIMED AT 80% . HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF INCOME-TAX (FO URTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2012 - AMENDMENT IN THE TABLE OF THE NEW APPENDIX-I DATED 30/03/2012, DEPRECIATION ON WIND M ILLS INSTALLED AFTER 01/04/2012 ARE ELIGIBLE TO DEPRECIA TION @ 15% ONLY. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THE SECOND HAND WIND MILL PURCHASED DURING F.Y.2013-14, HAS BEEN ALREADY INSTALLED AND AS SUCH ITS CLAIM OF 80% IS IN ORDER. 4.1 HOWEVER, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION IS TH AT WIND MILLS PURCHASED AFTER 31/03/2012 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 15% DEP RECIATION ONLY. IT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NEW PURCHASE VIS--VIS SECOND HAND PURCHASE I.E PRE INSTALLED WIND MILLS) 4.2 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSET DURING TH E RELEVANT PERIOD DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE 15% BLOCK OF PLANT & MACHINERY AS IT HAS PURCHASED PRE INSTALLED WTGS DURING F.Y.2 013-14. HOWEVER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THERE CAN NOT BE 80% BLOCK IN RESPECT OF WIND MILLS PURCHASED DURING F.Y .2013-14, EXCEPT THOSE ALREADY EXISTING IN THE BOOKS. AS PER THE AMENDMENT IN THIS REGARD, NO FRESH 80% BLOCK CAN HE CREATED JUST BECAUSE THE WIND MILLS ARE SECOND-HAND AND PR E-INSTALLED. SO FOR THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE MATERIAL YEAR F.Y,2 013-14, A FRESH BLOCK @ 15% COMES INTO EXISTENCE, AS SUCH IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS A NEW. BLOCK COMING INTO EXISTENCE. 4.3. FURTHER THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT ONLY NEWLY INSTALLED WTGS ARE COVERED BY THE NOTIFICATION IS N OT TENABLE 4 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 BECAUSE THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE VIDE THE SAID NOTIFICATION IS AMPLY CLEAR, THE SUBSEQUENT REVERSAL OF DEPRECIATIO N TO 80% VIDE AMENDMENT WEF. 01/04/2014 IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THIS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE RELEVANT NOTIF ICATIONS ARE AMENDATORY NOT CLARIFICATORY. 4.4 ALSO THE ASSESSEES INTERPRETATION THAT SECO ND HAND PURCHASE (I.E) PRE INSTALLED WITH MILLS ARE NOT COV ERED BY THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULES RE GARDING INTERPRETATION OF STATUES. BY THIS INTERPRETATION, DISCRIMINATION WILL BE CREATED BETWEEN CLASS OF ASSESSES, WHICH IS NOT THE INTENTION OF ANY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT. I.E. ASSESS EES WHO HAVE PURCHASED PRE-INSTALLED WIND MILLS DURING THE MATER IAL YEAR, WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR 80% AND THOSE WHO PURCHASE NEW WIND MILLS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR LESSER RATE @ 15%. IN FACT, THE SECOND HAND WINDMILLS ARE PURCHASED AT ENHANCED COST, THOUGH W. D.V. FOR THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS FAR LESS FIGURE DUE TO ACCELE RATED DEPRECIATION. SO, GIVING DEPRECIATION ON SUCH WIND MILLS 8O% BECAUSE IT IS PRE-INSTALLED IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WI TH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND THERE WILL HE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SAME CLASS OF ASSESSEES I.E. ASSESSEES WHO HAVE NEWLY P URCHASED AND INSTALLED WTGS AND ASSESSES WHO HAVE PURCHASED SECOND HAND WTGS(NOT REQUIRING INSTALLATION AS IT IS PRE I NSTALLED), IN FACT THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WILL NOT BE SERVED BY THE LATTER CATEGORY WHO CONTINUE TO BENEFIT FROM ACCELERATED D EPRECIATION ON THOSE ASSETS WHOSE WDVS BEFORE THE SALE WOULD BE MUCH LESS IF DEPRECIATION IS GIVEN AT 80% EVEN AFTER THE NOTIFICATION. 5. AS APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE WORDS OF A STATUTE, WHEN THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THEIR MEANING, A RE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THEY BEST HARMONIS E WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE ENACTMENT AND THE OBJECT WHICH THE L EGISLATURE HAS IN VIEW,, EVEN THE COURTS HAVE DECLINED TO BOUN D BY THE LETTER, WHEN IT FRUSTRATES THE PATENT PURPOSES OF T HE STATUTE. IT IS A RECOGNIZED RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES THA T EXPRESSIONS USED THEREIN SHOULD ORDINARILY BE UNDERSTOOD IN A S ENSE IN WHICH THEY BEST HARMONISE WITH THE OBJECT OF THE ST ATUTE, AND WHICH EFFECTUATE THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATURE. 5.1 NO EXCEPTION CAN BE TAKEN TO THE PROPOSITION T HAT FISCAL STATUTES SHOULD BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND IN CAS ES OF DOUBT, THE BENEFIT OF CONSTRUCTION MUST BE GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 HOWEVER THIS RULE APPLIES ONLY TO CHARGING SECTIO NS AND NOT TO MACHINERY SECTIONS OR TO PROVISIONS WHICH GIVE REL IEF TO THE TAX PAYER. IN GURSAHAI SAIGAL V. CIT [1963] 48 ITR (SC ) , IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION APPL IES PRIMARILY TO CHARGING PROVISION IN A TAXING STATUTE AND HAS NO A PPLICATION TO A PROVISION NOT CREATING A CHARGE FOR THE TAX BUT L AYING DOWN THE MACHINERY FOR ITS CALCULATION OR PROCEDURE FOR ITS COLLECTION AND SUCH MACHINERY PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED BY T HE ORDINARY RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. ONE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IN CONSTRUING A MACHINERY SECTION IS THAT IT SHOULD BE SO CONSTRU ED AS TO EFFECTUATE THE LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE CHARGING SE CTION AND TO MAKE THE MACHINERY WORKABLE. 5.3 IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, DEPRECIATION AT ENHAN CED RATE @80% ON WIND MILLS BECAUSE IT IS PRE-INSTALLED IS NOT I N CONSONANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT VIS--VIS AMENDATORY NO TIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY FOR THIS A.Y.2O15-16, THE WDV. AS ON 31 .03.2015 IS REWORKED BY ADOPTING 15% DEPRECIATION FOR WINDMILLS . 6. AFTER RE-COMPUTATION FOR AY.2014-15 , THE ELIGIB LE DEPRECIATION (ON ALL ASSETS) FOR AY.2015-16 IS FOU ND TO BE IN EXCESS - ( ` 769,30,161/- - RS. 3,28,03,324/-) BY ` 4,41,26,837/-. THIS HAS TO BE DISALLOWED FOR A.Y.20 15-16. 6 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT 80% AS AGAINST 15% WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, IN VIEW OF THE NOTIFICATION WHICH CLEARL Y STATES THAT THE WTGS DURING THE MATERIAL YEAR ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT 15%. AS SUCH PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(1)(C) IS INITIATED SEPARATELY. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WINDMILL PU RCHASED AND INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2012 ARE ELIGIBLE F OR 80% DEPRECIATION AS PER NOTIFICATION NO.15/2012 DATED 30 TH MARCH, 2012, WHERE THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT WINDMILLS A ND ANY SPECIALLY DESIGNED DEVICES WHICH RUN ON WINDMILL I NSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2012 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 80% DEPRECIATI ON. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE REJECTED THE CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT ONE OF THE BASIC CONDITIONS FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON ANY ASSET I S ITS OWNERSHIP. SINCE THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THE A SSET ONLY AFTER 31.3.2012, WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSET IS A NEW ASSET OR USED ASSET, DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED AS PER RATE APPLICABLE FROM THE DATE THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THE ASSE T. SINCE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED ASSET ON OR AFTER 01.04.2012 , AS PER 7 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 AMENDED PROVISIONS WINDMILLS ARE ENTITLED FOR DEPR ECIATION @ 15%. THEREFORE, CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRONG CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS CORRECT AND HER DECISION TO REWORK THE SAME ADOPTING 15% DEPRECIATION ON WINDMILL IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AND ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. AGGRIEVED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT SECOND HAND WINDMILL INSTALLED PRIOR TO 01.04.2012, BUT PURCH ASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 ARE ELIG IBLE FOR ONLY 15% DEPRECIATION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE WORD USED IN APPENDIX-I IS INSTALLATION OF WINDMILLS, BU T NOT ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION. THE AR FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT OWNER FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AND WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER ASSET IS INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. IF AN ASSET IS INS TALLED ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE, THEN RATE APPLICABLE FOR PERIOD WHEN 8 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 ASSET WAS INSTALLED SHOULD BE ALLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT ASSET IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PERSON. IN TH IS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED WINDMILLS WHICH WERE PURCHAS ED AND INSTALLED BEFORE 31.3.2012 HENCE, ELIGIBLE FOR 80% DEPRECIATION WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.15/2012 DATED 30.03.2012. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT AS PER AMENDE D PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX-I PART A, RATE OF DEPRECIA TION HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM 80% TO 15% ON WINDMILLS ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER 01.04.2012. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED W INDMILLS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14, RATE OF DEPRECIATION A PPLICABLE TO THAT PERIOD WAS 15% AND HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR I N THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DEPRECIATION TO 15% INSTEAD OF 80% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE RATES FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION UNDER TH E INCOME TAX ACT FOR VARIOUS BLOCK OF ASSETS IS SPECIFIED UN DER RULE 5 OF INCOME TAX RULES,1962, READ WITH NEW APPENDIX-I OF THE 9 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 RULES. AS PER SAID NEW APPENDIX-I, RATE OF DEPRECIA TION FOR WINDMILL ARE SPECIFICALLY GIVEN IN PART A, AS PER WHICH WINDMILLS AND ANY SPECIALLY DESIGNED DEVICES WHICH RUN ON WI NDMILLS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 80%. THIS WAS FURTHER C LARIFIED BY CBDT VIDE ITS NOTIFICATION NO.15/2012 DATED 30.0 3.2012, AS PER WHICH, WINDMILLS INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2 012 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 80% DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE O N THE GROUND THAT WINDMILLS PURCHASED AND INSTALLED ON OR AFTER 01.04.2012 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 15% DEPRECIATION, AS PE R AMENDED APPENDIX-I OF RULE 5 OF INCOME TAX RULES,1962. ACC ORDING TO HER, OWNERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATI ON ON ANY ASSET AND HENCE, IF THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER AFTER 01.04.2012, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT ANY ASSET IS INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2012, DEPRECIATION SHALL BE APPLICA BLE AS PER AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SHE OPINE D THAT RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WINDMI LLS IS INCORRECT AND HENCE, DISALLOWED EXCESS DEPRECIATION OVER AND ABOVE 15% CLAIMED ON WINDMILLS. 10 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLO WANCE OF DEPRECIATION OVER AND ABOVE 15% ON WINDMILLS AND F IND NO MERITS, BECAUSE THE ACT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT WI NDMILLS INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2012 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 80%. THE SAID RULE DOES NOT GIVE EMPHASIZE FOR PURCHASE/ACQUISITION OF WINDMILLS, BUT ONLY TALKS A BOUT INSTALLATION. WHEN THE ACT ITSELF TALKS ABOUT INST ALLATION OF WINDMILL, THEN ACQUISITION OF SUCH ASSET IS NOT MAT ERIAL TO DECIDE RATE OF DEPRECIATION. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT WINDMILLS WERE INSTALL ED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2012. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS PURCHASED USED WINDMILLS ON AS IS WHERE IS BASIS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. THEREFORE, ONCE THE WINDMIL LS ARE INSTALLED BEFORE 31.03.2012, THEN RATE OF DEPRECIAT ION IS APPLICABLE AS PER PRE-AMENDED APPENDIX-I OF RULE 5 OF INCOME TAX RULES,1962. FURTHER, AS PER SAID RULE, RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON WINDMILLS WHICH ARE ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2012 IS AT 80%. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE BECAME OW NER OF 11 ITA NO.581/CHNY/2019 WINDMILLS ONLY AFTER 31.03.2012 AND ENTITLED FOR DE PRECIATION AS PER AMENDED RATE, WHEN THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT INSTALLATION OF WINDMILLS AND ACQUISITION OF ASSET IS IMMATERIAL TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE WINDMILL WAS ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2012 AND ASSESSEE HAS BECAME SECOND OWNER AND HAS NOT DISMANTLED FROM ONE PLACE AND RE- ERECTED IN ANOTHER PLACE, THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(A) ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 5 OF INCOME TAX RULES,1962. HENC E, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 80% ON WINDMILLS A S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH APRIL, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G. MANJUNATHA ) / VICE-PRESIDENT # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % /CHENNAI, & / DATED 28 TH APRIL, 2021 DS )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 0 /DR 6. /GF .