Krishna Maruti Ltd, V. DCIT Circle 5 (1),

ITA 904/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9999 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M P RASTOGI AVOCATE
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NO.904/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 ACIT, CIRCLE-I, MEERUT. VS. SHRI JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA, 219, RAILWAY ROAD, MEERUT. PAN AARPG5507B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.P. RASTOGI, AVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.05.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 22.12.2008 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04. ITA NO.904/DEL/2009 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.25 LAC IN RESPECT OF SUPERVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF HIRED ASS ETS. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THIS GROUND ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE F ILE OF AO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE AND SEND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING IT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNA L IN ITS ORDER FOR THE SAID EARLIER YEARS. 3. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND WHICH SURVIVES IN THIS APP EAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9,37,300/- MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON EQUI PMENTS PURCHASED FROM BBW. HERE AGAIN, BOTH THE SIDES AGREE THAT TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE F OR AYS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 AS ARGUED BY THE RIVAL PARTIES SIMULTANEOUS LY WITH THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. WE HAVE PASSED A SEPARATE ORDER FOR TH E SAID EARLIER TWO YEARS DETERMINING THE ACTUAL COST OF THE EQUIPMENTS PURCHASED FROM ITA NO.904/DEL/2009 3 BBW AT RS.35 LAC AS AGAINST RS.20.00 LAC TAKEN BY T HE AO. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMIT TED TO THE AO FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.05.201 5. SD/- SD/- [C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 5 TH MAY, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.