KOCH CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGU GROUP INIDA P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8038/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8575 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MILAN K MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ MUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL,JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.8038/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2004-05) M/S. KOCH CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD., 10 TH FLOOR, CORPORATE PARK II, SION-TROMBAY ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400 071. PAN: AABCK 3688G (APPELLANT) VS. THE ACIT 10(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI - 20. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MILAN K. MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 01/10/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 /10/2012 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI DATED 20/07/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,27,53,830/- ON GOOD WILL BEING BOUGHT GOODWILL ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID ITEM IS NOT CO VERED UNDER THE HEAD INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH ERE WAS NO DIRECTION BY THE CIT TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ORDE R U/S 263. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234B OF THE ACT. ITA NO.8038/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2004-05) 2 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R THAT T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PRESENT APPEAL H AS BEEN FILED IS AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SE CTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT VIDE ORDER DATED 28/1/2011, IN ITA NO.2680/MUM/2009 PASSED BY LD. C IT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CANCELLED. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PLACED ON OUR RECORD AND A COPY HAS ALSO GIVEN TO LD. D.R. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. A.R THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT DOES NOT SURVIV E AS THE VERY BASIS OF THE ORDER WHICH IS PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER UND ER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. 3. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORD ER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 10 TH DAY OF OCT., 2012 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA ) (I.P.BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 10 TH OCT., 2012. COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.R A BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.8038/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2004-05) 3 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 01/10/2012 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 01/10/2012 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER