ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Gemscab Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 763/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69183 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C. M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.763/DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10) ACIT VS. GEMSCAB INDUSTRIES LTD. CIRCLE-12 (1), 4 TH FLOOR, PREM SADAN, 11, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI PAN: AAACG5260H. ASSESSEE BY : NONE. REVENUE BY : SHRI S. K. UPADHYAY, SR.DR. ORDER PER C. M. GARG, J M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, NEW DELHI DATED 27.11.2012 IN APPEAL NO- 32/2011-12/CIT (A)-XV FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L READS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER LD. CIT (A) WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,15,000/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFF ICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE ON THE ELECTRIC INSTALLATION IN THE WIND MILLS. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HE ARING. ITA NO.763/DEL/2013 2 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER TH E ASSESSEE NOR THE LD. AR APPEAR BEFORE US BUT LOOKING INTO THE IMPUGNED O RDER AND ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE. T HEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. FROM BARE READING OF IMPUGNED ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT (A) HAS DEC IDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 4. THE LD. AR APPEARED AND PLEADED THE CASE. IT WA S ARGUED THAT THE MATTER IS ALREADY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT WAS INFORMED THAT WHILE DECIDING T HE MATTER, THE HONBLE ITAT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF TH E ITAT, MUMBAI AND ITAT, PUNE ON THE SAME ISSUE WHERE IN TH E SAME CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HELD THAT A HIGHER RATE OF DEP RECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON SIMILAR TYPE OF INSTALLATION SET UP BE TWEEN WINDMILL AND GRID. I ALSO FIND THAT MY LD. PREDECES SOR TOO HAD FOLLOWED THE SAME FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2008-09 AND HAS TREATED THE ELECTRICAL LINES TO CONNECT THE GRID TO THE WINDMILL AS PART OF THE WINDMILL AND HAS ALLOWED DE PRECIATION @ 80% INSTEAD OF 10% AS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 4.2 SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A RE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION TO THE HONBLE IT AT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, I HOLD THAT DEPRECIATION OF ELECTRICAL LINES CONNECTED GRID TO THE WINDMILL BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 80% INSTEAD OF 10% AS WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.763/DEL/2013 3 4. ON SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ORDER OF TH E ITAT IN ASSESSS OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS ORDER HAS NOT BEEN SET ASIDE OR M ODIFIED BY ANY APPELLATE FORUM TILL DATE. 5. THE CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT, NEW DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS HELD THAT THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON SIMILAR TYPE O F INSTALLATION SET UP BETWEEN WINDMILL AND GRID. THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO HEL D THAT LD. PREDECESSOR TOO HAD FOLLOWED THE SAME STANDARD FOR ALLOWING DEP RECIATION IN DECIDING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2008-09 AND HAS TREATED THE ELECTRICAL LINES TO CONNECT THE GRID TO THE WINDMILL AS A PART OF THE W INDMILL AND HAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 80% INSTEAD OF 10% AS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO H OLD THAT THE CIT (A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,15,000/- M ADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION IN THE WIND MILL. ITA NO.763/DEL/2013 4 7. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE SOLE GROUND OF TH E REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS, DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED AND WE DI SMISS THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08 TH /08/ 2013. SD/- SD/- (J. S. REDDY) (C. M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 08 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013 S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR,ITAT NEW DELHI.