Surinder Malik, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

ITA 6421/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4658 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH DUBEY
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 192

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 6421/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 ) SHRI SURINDER MALIK, D - 39, GULMOHAR PARK, NEW DELHI PAN: AAUPM0141Q VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 52(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 15/09 / 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 5 / 09 / 2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 18, NEW DELHI DATED 30.08.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD ACIT, CIRCLE - 52(1), NEW DELHI U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 27.10.2016 , WHERE AGAINST THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 41,29,030/ - WHICH WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 53,55,48 0 / - BY DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 12,26,454/ - . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING BANQUET HALL HAVING ELECTRONICALLY OPERATED COLLAPSIBLE ROOF WITH AIR CONDITIONING AND T HE SAME IS PROVIDED TO PUBLIC FOR HOLDING FUNCTIONS . A SSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2014 AT RS. 41,29,030/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING , ON PERUSAL OF THE DEPRECIATI ON CHART WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION O N H ALL AND SIGN BOARD @15% CONSIDERING IT AS PLANT . THE LD AO HELD THAT HALL IS A SUPER STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION ON THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED PAGE | 2 @10%. SIMILARLY, THE LD AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SIGN BOARDS BEING THE FIXTURE ON THE BUILDING IT SHOULD ALSO BE DEPRECATED @10% BEING FURNITURE AND FIXTURE. BEFORE HIM , ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BUILDING IS A STRUCTURE WHICH CONSTITUTE AP P AR A TUS AND TO O L TO CARR Y ON BUSINESS OF BANQUET AND THEREFORE, CONSTITUTED PLANT , HENCE DEPRECATION IS ALLOW ABLE @15%. THE LD AO REJECTED THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS AND HELD THAT HALL IS A BUILDING AND DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON IT @ 10% AND SIGN BOARD IS FITTING AND FIXT URE ON WHICH DEPRECIATION @10% IS ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, 5% EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AT RS. 12,24,079/ - WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO APPLIED THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CI T V ANAND THEATRES [2000] 110 TAXMAN 338 (SC)/[2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC)/[2000] 160 CTR 492 (SC) AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF HALL AND SIGN BOARDS. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT ON BOTH THIS ITEM DEPRECIAT I ON IS ALLOWABLE @10%. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCES OF DEPRECIATION. 3. DESPITE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.04.2021, 28.06.2021, 14.09.2021 AND 15.09.2021 , NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HALL IS A BUILDING AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PLANT. THE LD LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THEREFORE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THOSE ORDERS. H E FURTHER STATED THAT THE SIGN BOARDS IS ALSO FIXED TO THE BUILDING THEREFORE, IT IS FURNITURE AND FIXTURE ON WHICH DEPRECIATION @10% IS ALLOWABLE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPRECIATION ON HALL THE LD CIT(A) HAS APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ANAND THEATER IN 244 ITR 192. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE LD CIT(A) TO THAT EXTENT. WITH RESPECT TO THE SIGN BOARDS WE FIND THAT SAME CONSTITUTES THE PLANT IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A FURNITURE AND FIXTURE AS SUCH SIGN BOARDS DISPLAY S THE NAMES AND DATES OF FUNCTION ETC. IT PERFORMS E FUNCTION OF THE PLANT PAGE | 3 AND MACHINERY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECATION OF RS. 12,24,079/ - ON BUILDING IS CONFIRMED AND DISALLOWANCES OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2375 ON SIGN BOARDS IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 / 09 / 2021 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 5 / 09 / 2021 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI