M/s Aspee Sons, Baddi V. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

ITA 914/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1871 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 80IC; 80IC

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH .., !' '# $, % &' BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ITA NO. 914/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 M/S ASPEE SONS, VILLAGE KURANWALA, NEAR MANDHALA, BADDI THE DCIT CIRCLE, PARWANOO PAN NO: AAQFA1827R APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 03/12/2020 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/12/2020 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT . 26/12/2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA, H.P. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN ORDER DATED 26.12.2018 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAD ORDE RED FOR REDUCTION OF WDV OF PLANT AND MACHINERY BY RS. 27,79,174/- BY THRUSTING ADDIT IONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE APPELLANT EVEN WHEN APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED THE, SAME AND M ORE-SO WHEN APPELLANT'S ELIGIBILITY FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS NEVER EXAMINED . 3. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, WORTHY CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT WHILE COMPUTING ELIGIBL E PROFITS FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC, UNCLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT & MACHIN ERY PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR IS TO BE REDUCED AND SAID DEPRECIATION IS NOT TO BE GRANT ED AS DEDUCTION U/ S 32 EVEN WHEN THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED INTO ANY ADDITIONAL TAXABLE INCOME AND THE ENTIRE EXERCISE WAS ONLY REVENUE NEU TRAL AS HELD IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR 2 AY 2014-15 IN ITA NO. 1334/CHANDI/2018 DTD. 07.03.2 019 AND MORE-SO WHEN THE LD. AO HAS NOT DONE ANY ADDITION OF SUCH TYPE AND THE WORTHY C IT(A) NEVER RAISED SUCH ISSUE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION, D ELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS WA S A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IN ITA N O. 1334/CHANDI/2018 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DT. 07/03/2019 THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE A FORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT, SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 21 TO 28 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. 4. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR ALTHOUGH SUP PORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT, SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH IN ASSESSES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1334/CHD/2018 FOR THE A.Y . 2014-15 VIDE ORDER DT. 07/03/2019 AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN I N PARA 8 & 9 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THA T AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSEE'S FAVOUR IN THE CASE O F M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, BADDI VS DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO (SUPRA) VIDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2018 WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 3 TO 6 WHICH READ AS UNDER : 3. IN THIS APPEAL, AS PER THE CONTENTION RAISED, TH E ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF NON-CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND THEREBY REDUCING THE ELIGIBLE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AS THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES WILL GO TO ADD/REDUCE TH E BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH OTHERWISE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON T HE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF LESS DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WOULD ADD TO THE BUS INESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF LESS DEPRECIATION WILL GO ON REDUCING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH OTHERWISE, ADMITTEDLY, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80IC OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ABOVE STATED DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE EXIGIBLE TO TAXATION SEPARATELY. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS. 3 8S 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE DECIDED WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT ENHANC EMENT/ADDITION INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID DISALLOWAN CES WILL NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL TAX, RATHER IT WILL INCREASE/ DECREASE OF THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH OTHERWISE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS. THEREFORE, THE GROU ND NOS. 3 & 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. 9. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRE D TO ORDER DATED 01.08.2018 IN THE CASE OF M/S UNISON PHARMACEUTICALS, BADDI VS DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO IN ITA 472/CHD/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 6. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED T O ORDER DT. 07/03/2019 IN ASSESEES OWN CASE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/12/2020 ) SD/- SD/- '# $ .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 03/12/2020 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE