Smt. Mamta Nirajkumar Agrawal, Vadodara V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

ITA 811/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8550 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NOS: 811 & 376/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 & 2013-14) SMT. MAMTA NIRAJKUMAR AGRAWAL PROP. MADHU COPY CENTRE, OPP. GAS OFFICE, DANDIYA BAZAR, VADODARA-390001 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ACHPA 8633J APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIN SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 03 -04-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 -04-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. ITA NOS. 811/AHD/2017 & 376/AHD/2017 ARE TWO SEPARA TE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF T HE LD. CIT(A)-3, VADODARA ITA NOS. 811 & 376/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2012-1 3 & 2013-14 2 DATED 30.11.2016 & 02.02.2017 PERTAINING TO A.YS. 2 012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN BOT H THE YEARS, THEREFORE BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AGREED THAT FACTS OF A.Y. 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 376/AHD/2017 MAY BE CONS IDERED. 3. THE DISPUTE RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF HIGHER DEPRECI ATION ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF XEROX, SCANNING & BINDING SERVICES. THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON VERIFICATION OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AND DEPRECIA TION CLAIMED, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 60% IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ITEMS:- SR, NO, NAME OPENING WPV/ADDITION DEPRECIATION CLAIMED @60% DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE @15% 1 DIGITAL MULTI FUNCTION 73601 44161 11040 2 DIGITAL MULTI FUNCTION 73601 44161 11040 3 DIGITAL MULTI FUNCTION 19162 11497 2874 4 DIGITAL MULTI FUNCTION 34912 20947 5237 S DIGITAL MULTI FUNCTION 27562 16537 4134 6 DIGITAL MULTI FUNCTION 47775 28665 7166 ITA NOS. 811 & 376/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2012-1 3 & 2013-14 3 7 DIGITAL MULTI FUNCTION [JI1262 12757 3189 8 DIGITAL PAPER COPIER 68250 40950 10237 9 DIGITAL PAPER COPIER 68250 40950 10237 10 DVRCARD 8339 5003 1251 11 HP T - 770 PLOTTER 84000 50400 12600 12 OCE - PLOTWAVE 787500 472500 118125 13 OCE TDS 320 247520 148512 37128 14 OLD USED COPIE R 1 78120 19530 15 OLD USED DIGITAL COPIER 65100 39060 9765 16 OLD USED DIGITAL COPIER 67200 40320 10080 17 OW USED PHOTO COPIER 65100 39060 9765 18 PAPER COPIER 9744 5846 1462 19 PHOTO COPIER MACHINE 141750 85050 21262 2 0 PLAIN PAPER COPIER 168000 - 50% 5 0400 12600 21 X - 1000 PRESS 8795460 - 50% 2638638 659659 EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED RS. 29,35,153/- 6. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPLICABLE RAT E OF DEPRECIATION IS 15% AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION AT RS. 29,35,153/-. 7. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSETS ARE COMPUTER PERIPHERALS A ND THEREFORE THE APPLICABLE RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS 60%. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON ITEMS NO. 1 TO 13 OF THE DEPRECIATION CHART ITA NOS. 811 & 376/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2012-1 3 & 2013-14 4 MENTIONED ELSEWHERE. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF ITEMS N O. 14 TO 21, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERA TED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D .R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE DISPUTE AROSE BECAUSE OF TH E NOMENCLATURE GIVEN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS USED THE WORD COPIER, THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ON PHOTO -COPY MACHINES, THE ELIGIBLE RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS 15% AND NOT 60% AS THE PHOTO-COPIERS ARE NOT COMPUTER PERIPHERALS. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SEPARATELY SHOWN PHOT O-COPIERS AND HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 15% ONLY. THIS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION EXHIBITED AT PAGE 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 12. THE IMPUGNED ASSETS ON WHICH THE DISPUTE AROSE ARE MULTIFACETED PRINTERS HAVING DIMENSIONAL FUNCTIONS BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE IMPUGNED ASSETS ARE PRINTERS AND ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPUTER SY STEM. 13. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD. 358 ITR 47 HAS HELD THAT COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND P ERIPHERALS SUCH AS PRINTERS, SCANNERS AND SERVER, ETC., FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF COMPUTER SYSTEM AND, HENCE, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 60%. ITA NOS. 811 & 376/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2012-1 3 & 2013-14 5 14. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 60%. BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05- 04- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 05/04/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD