SAIDPUR JUTE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT- CIRCLE- 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6422/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7108 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T.S. KHALSA LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: HARESH PURUSHOTTAM DAS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANO J KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO. 6422 /MUM/201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 15 - 16 ) M/S SAIDPUR JUTE COMPANY LTD . BHARAT INSURANCE BLDG, 3 RD FLOOR, 15A, HORIMAN CIRCLE FORT, MUMBAI - 400 02 3 / VS. A C IT - 2 (3 ) (2) R. NO. 552, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO . A A HCS - 0816 - Q ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARESH PURUSHOTTAMDAS SHAH LD. AR REVENUE BY : SHRI T. S. K HALSA LD. SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18 /08 /2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/08/2021 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN CAPTIONED APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 20 15 - 16 IS TH E FACT TH AT DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT HIGHER RATE OF 80% ON CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN DENIED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. 2. UPON HEARING, IT TRANSPIRES THAT AY 2014 - 15 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF SUCH CLAIM AND THE APPEAL FOR THAT YEAR IS PENDING BEFORE LEARNED FIRST 2 APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO TAKE A CONSISTENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED HEARING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CL AIM. 3. THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF 80% ON ALL ASSETS FORMING PART OF SOLAR POWER GENERATING SYSTEM. THOUGH LD. AO ALLOWED HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON MAIN ITEMS, HOWEVER, SUCH HIGHER DEPRECIATION WAS DENIED ON REMAINING ITE MS AS DONE IN AY 2014 - 15. THE STAND OF LD. AO, UPON CONFIRMATION BY LD. CIT(A), IS IN FURTHER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. 4. IT IS EVIDENT THAT AY 2014 - 15 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF SUCH CLAIM AND LD. AO HAS FOLLOWED THE FINDINGS OF AY 2014 - 15 IN THIS YEAR. SINCE THE A PPEAL FOR AY 2014 - 15 IS ALREADY PENDING BEFORE LEARNED F IRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY , WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THIS APPEAL ALSO BACK T O THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO TAKE CONSISTENT STAND IN THE MATTER . NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. 5. THE APPEAL STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH AUGUST, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 25/08/2021 SR.PS, DHANANJAY 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMB AI.