ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI V. DCB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LIMITED), MUMBAI

ITA 62/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1432 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G PANSARI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM ) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 62/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2013 - 14 THE ACIT 2(3)(1), R. NO. 552, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S DCB BANK LTD. (FORMERLY DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD.), 6 TH FLOOR, TOWER A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400013 PAN: AAACD1461F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI D.G. PANSARI ( D R ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATISH MODY (A R ) DATE OF HEARING: 13/02 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 / 05 /201 9 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20. 10.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6 (FOR SHORT THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 49,33,50,936/ - . THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AFTER ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS . T HE AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 9,48,81,164/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, TREATING THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST AS PART OF THE COST PRICE OF THE SECURITIES A CQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK, DISALLOWED THE AMORTIZATION OF SECURITIES PREMIUM OF HTM SECURITIES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,73,09,872/ - TREATING THE SAME AS PART OF THE COST PRICE . THE AO FURTHER MADE 2 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,40,786/ - UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D AND RS. 16,64,214/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASE ASSETS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSE E ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) . 3. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S CITY BANK IN CIVIL APPEAL 1549 OF 2006, AND ORDER OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNAT IONAL BANKING CORPORATION V/S CIT 258 ITR 601 AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DENA BANK IN ITA NO. 3476/M./2000 DATED 10.04.2014. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON THIS SIMILAR ISSUE WHICH IS PENDING FO R FINAL VERDICT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2012 - 13 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, WHICH ARE PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. VIDE GROUND NO. 1 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF B ROKEN PERIOD INTEREST. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO, THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT PART OF PRICE PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE SECURITIES , 3 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 THERE FORE NO PART OF IT CAN BE SET OFF AS EXPENDITURE AGAINST INTEREST ACCRUING ON THESE SECURITIES. SINCE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE SAME. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. THE LD. COUNSE L FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIBANK IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2006 , DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATI ONA L BANKING CORPORATION VS. CIT 258 ITR 601 AND THE DECISION S OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI . THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 AND 2012 - 13. SINCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE DECISION REFERRED ABOVE AND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT RENDERED IN ASSESSEES APPEALS PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER YEARS , T HERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO INTERFERE WITH. 6. WE HAVE GONE THRO UGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) READ AS UNDER: - 6.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TH E FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCUSSION OF THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS ORAL CONTENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING A.Y.2011 - 12. AFTER CONSI DERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR VIDE APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 6 /I T - 178/2014 - 15 DATED 05.10.2015. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER FOR READY REFERENCE: 4 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 '6.2 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELI ED UPON BY LD. . AR AND THE AO. I F IND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELL ANT BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. C ITI BANK IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2006. FURTHER, HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK (SUPRA) HAS ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THA T THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DENA BANK HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN ASS ESSEE'S FAVOUR IN ITA NO.3676/M/ 2000 DATED 10.02.2014. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND MUMBAI ITAT, IT IS HELD THAT THE BROK EN PERIOD INTEREST PAID BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED .' 6.5 SIMILARLY. IN A.Y.2012 - 13, MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT VIDE APPEAL NO. CIT (A) - 6/IT - 2/ 2014 - 15 DATED 27.05.2016. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 7.2 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCUSSION OF THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS ORAL CONTENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING A.Y.2011 - 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE A PPELLANT BY MY LEARNE D PREDECESSOR VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT'(A)6/IT 178/ 2014 - 15 DATED 05.10.2015. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: '6.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APP ELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AR AND THE AO. I F IND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. C ITI BANK IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1549 OF 2006. FURTHER, HO N'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK (SUPRA) HAS ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DENA BANK HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN ASS ESSEE'S FAVOUR IN ITA NO.3676/M/ 2000 DATED 10.02.2014. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND MUMBAI ITAT, IT IS HELD THAT THE 5 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST PAID BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED.' 7.3 SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE REASONS GIVEN IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2011 - 12 (SUPRA), NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST ON HTM SECURITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.4,7 1,69,218/ - MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED.' 6.6 SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE REASONS GIVEN BY MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y.2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST ON HTM SECURITIES. THE ADDITION OF RS.9.48,81,164/ - MADE BY THE AC IN RESPECT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST ON HIM SECURITIES IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 7. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13. SINCE, THE DECISIONS OF THE THEN LD. COMMISSIONERS (A PPEALS ) RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED O RDE R , ARE BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIBANK (SUPRA), HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK (SUPRA) AND SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO MERIT I N THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN APPEALS FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 , 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13. HENCE, W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). W E THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. VIDE GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,40,786/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 6 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2012 - 13 AND SINCE THE SAID DECISION IS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT 378 ITR (DEL) AND OTHER CASES, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO GONE THROUGH T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING AS UNDER: - 8.4 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCUSSION OF THE AC IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS ORAL CON TENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING A.Y.2012 - 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR VIDE APPEAL N1O.CIT(A) - 6/IT - 2/2014 - 15 DATED 27.05.2016. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: '6.2 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE APPELLANT BANK HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF CHEMINVEST LTD. V. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (DEL) IN THE CASES OF CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), LAKHANI MARKETING INC. (SUPRA), SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8.5 SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR. ADDITION OF RS.1 , 40,786/ - MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 11. WE NOTICE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE BANK HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THEREFORE THE APPLICATION OF 14A DOES NOT ARISE. SINCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT , W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO INTERFERE WITH. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 12. VIDE GROUND NO. 3 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT O F DEPRECIATION ON LEASE ASSETS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LEASED ASSETS WERE PURCHASED AND LEASED OUT DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996 - 97, 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99, 1999 - 2000 AND NO NEW ASSETS WERE PURCHASED FOR LEASING OUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS IN THE CURRENT YEAR. HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDER ED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 1996 - 97 TO 2004 - 05 AND AY 2008 - 09 . SINCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT . THEREFO RE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. 14. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER: - 9.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCUSSION OF THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS ORAL 8 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 CONTENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE PRE C EDING A.Y.2011 - 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR VIDE APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 6/IT - 178/2014 - 15 DATED 05.10.2015. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: '4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT DIRECTLY BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DATED 20.03.2013 PAS SED IN RESPECT OF A.YS.1996 - 97 TO 2004 - 05 AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF A.Y2 008 - 0 9. THE LD. CIT (A) - 6, MUMBAI HAS ALLOWED THE GROUND IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A.Y.2010 - 11 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 6/ IT - 108/RG.2(3)1 2 - 13 DATED 21.10.2013. RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THE GROUND IS ALLOWED.' 9.5 SIMILARLY, IN A.Y.2012 - 13, MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE APP ELLANT VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A) - 6/I T - 2/2014 - 15 DATED 2 7.05.2016. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR. I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN APPELLANT'S OWN CA SE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A. Y.2011 - 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLA NT VIDE PARA 4.2 OF APPEAL NO.CIT(A) - 6/IT - 178/ 2014 - 15 DATED 05.10.2015. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE AND CLARITY: - '4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT DIRECTLY BY THE .HON'BLE TRIBUNAL' S ORDER DATED 20.03.2013 PASSED IN RESPECT OF A.YS.1996 - 97 TO 2004 - 05 AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF A.Y.2008 - 09. THE LD. CIT (A) - 6, MUMBAI HAS ALLOWED THE GROUND IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A. Y.2010 - 11 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A) - 6/IT - 1O8/RG.2(3) /1 2 - 13 DATED 21.10.2013. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THE GROUND IS ALLOWED.' 9 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE REASONS GIVEN IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.20 11 - 12 (SUPRA), NO DISALLOWAN CE IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.19,57,8981MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED.' 9. 6 SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HE REASONS G IVEN BY MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR F OR A.Y.2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13, NO D ISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS. THE ADDITION OF R S.16,64,214/ - MADE BY THE AC IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS IS DELETED. A CCORDINGLY , THE GR OUND IS ALLOWED. 15. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR PASSED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE SAID ORDER IS BASE D ON THE FINDINGS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH DECIDED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AYS 1996 - 97 TO 2004 - 05 AND 2008 - 09. SINCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013 - 2014 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MAY , 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 07 / 05 / 201 9 ALINDRA, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 10 ITA NO. 62 / MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI