Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4414 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
21-08-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
26-12-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.8269/DEL/2018 & 6022/Del/2019 Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Gulati Steel Fab P. Ltd., Plot No.139, Sector-24, Faridabad. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Faridabad. TAN/PAN: AACCG7561M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.B. Mathur, CA Respondent by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 01 08 2022 Date of pronouncement: 22 08 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Inco me Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [‘CI T(A) ’ in short], dated 29.10.2018 and 29.05.2019 arising from order assess ment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 143(3) r.w. Section 147 of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 2. When the matter was called for hea ring, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that depreciation of Rs.1,44,300/- clai med on old boring machi ne WDV I.T.A. No.8269/DEL/2018 & 6022/Del/2019 2 Rs.9,62,000/- has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the purchase of the machiner y is bogus. In this regard, the ld. co unsel for the assessee pointed out that in the subsequent Assess ment Yea r 2017-18, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and mad e requisite specific inquiries in this regard yet again which reads as under: “P lea se f ur ni sh th e d et ail s ma ch in er y p ur ch as ed fr om M/ s. Nee l Ka nt h S te el a nd wh et he r a ny de p rec ia ti on w as cl ai m ed on suc h ma ch in eri es pu rch as es d ur in g ear li er ye ar s f rom M/ s. Nee l Ka nt h St eel .” 3. In response thereto, the assessee replied and inquiries were also conducted by the Assessing Off icer. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessment order dated 09.12.2019 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 wherein no disallowance was carried out on the depreciation claimed on the mac hinery purchased from M/s. Neel Kanth Steel. In this factual backdrop, the ld. counsel urged for reversal of disallowance in Assess ment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in question having regard to the factual position tested in the subsequent Assess ment Year 2017-18. 4. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we fin d merit in the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in the instant case, has acceded to the position on facts reported by the Assessing Officer. Thus, there is no warrant to take a wholly different position in other assessment yea r s. The disallowance of depreciation of I.T.A. No.8269/DEL/2018 & 6022/Del/2019 3 Rs.1,44,300/- and Rs.1,22,655/- for Assess ment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively a re thus re versed. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/08/2022. Sd /- Sd /- [KUL BHARAT] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /08/2022 Prabhat
