CASTROL INDIA LTD, V. ASST CIT RG 8(1),

MA 117/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2119 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH S JOSH I
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI .. , ' $ %, ' & BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, J M $$ / MA NO. 117 /MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3938/MUM/2010 ( % % % % % % % % / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) M/S. CASTROL INDIA LIMITED, TECHNOPOLIS KNOWLEDGE PARK, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD,CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI. -4000 93 / VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 8(1), ROOM NO.260,2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. ' ./ PAN : AAACC4481E (APPLICANT) .. RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NITESH S.JOSHI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUMIT KUMAR - . / // / DATE OF HEARING : 18-07-2014 - . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-07-2014 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.09.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.4413/MUM/2010. 2. AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISC. A PPLICATION AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.09.2012 IS BEING SOUGHT TO BE REC TIFIED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: GROUND NO.3 1. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT READ AS UNDER : DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION FOR UNIT LOCATED AT SILVASSA AMOUNTING TO RS.9,70,65,909 ALT HOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN THE PAST. 2. THE APPELLANT HAD A UNIT LOCATED AT SILVASSA AND THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS LOCATED THEREAT FROM AY. 199 7-98 TILL AY. 2001-02. THE PRESENT AY. IS THE FIRST AY IN WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER HAD THRUST DEPRECI ATION ON THE APPELLANT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. FROM AY 1997-98 TILL AY 2001-02 AND ONLY CONSEQUENTLY MA 117/MUM/2014 2 COMPUTED DEPRECIATION FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ON T HE BASIS OF THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2001 AFTER HAVING INCLUDED DEPRECIATION WHIC H WAS THRUST DOWN THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS HIS CONSEQUENTIAL CALCULATION WH ICH RESULTED IN A DENIAL TO THE APPELLANT OF DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED DUR ING THE YEAR. 4. THE ABOVE MATTER IS COVERED ON PAGE 12, PARAGRAP H 9 OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE ITAT DATED 14 TH SEPTEMBER 2012. THE ADJUDICATION IS IN PARAGRAPH 1 0 TO PAGE 13. 5. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SAID GROUND IS SQUARELY CO VERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF PLASTIBLENDS LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT (318 ITR 352) AND ACCORDINGLY TH E GROUND WAS DISMISSED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS AGREED EVEN BY THE COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. ADMITTEDLY, AS MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER CLAIMING O DEPRECIATION OF UPTO AY2001-02 IS MANDAT ORY OR OTHERWISE IS AS OF NOW COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTED AT 318 ITR 352. 7. HOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPELLAN T HAS ACTUALLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS BROUGHT OUT CORRECTLY IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE ORDE R OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL. HENCE IN THE EVEN THAT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK O F ASSETS AS OF 31 ST MARCH 2001 UNDERGOES A CHANGE, THE DEPRECATION CLAIMED FOR THI S YEAR WOULD NEED TO BE CONSEQUENTIALLY CHANGED. 8. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS WAS NOT ARTICULATED COR RECTLY BEFORE YOUR GOOD SELF BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND HENCE A FURTHER DIRECTION TO TH IS EFFECT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN IN THE ORDER-MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR THE ORDER TO BE GIVEN SUITABLE EFFECT TO IT AND WHEN THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS 31 ST MARCH 2001 UNDERGOES A CHANGE. 9. CONSEQUENTLY THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE HONBLE T RIBUNAL DOES NOT COMPLETELY DEAL WITH THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL. 10. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT AN ADDITIONAL DIREC TION BE KINDLY GIVEN BY THIS HONBLE ITAT THAT THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEA L BE RE-DETERMINED WHENEVER THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AT THE END OF THE PRECEDING YEAR VIZ. AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2001 UNDERGOES A CHANGE. 11. IT IS ALSO PRAYED THAT THIS RELEVANT BECAUSE TH E APPELLANT HAS FIELD SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE ORDERS O F THE EARLIER YEARS WHERE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN THRUST UPON THE ASSESSEE BY P LACING RELIANCE ON 318 ITR 352 AND THESE COULD RESULT IN A CHANGE IN THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AT THE END OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. 12. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE NOT GIVING OF SU CH A DIRECTION RESULTS IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT NOT BEING COMPLETELY ADJUDI CATED AND IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE R ECORD. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND A LSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APP LICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A DIRECTION FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BE RE-DETERMINED WHENEVER WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AT THE END OF THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 31 ST MARCH 2001 UNDERGOES A CHANGE IF THE ASSESSEE SUCCE EDS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH A DIRECTION BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR DISPOS AL OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION INVOLVED IN G ROUND NO.3 AND IT THEREFORE CANNOT BE MA 117/MUM/2014 3 SAID THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT GIVING SUCH DIRECTION. MOREOVER THE ISSUE OF RE-DETERMINING THE DEPRECATIO N FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS A RESULT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE CLOSING WRITTEN DOWN VA LUE IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE EARLIER YEARS I S PURELY A CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUE AND THE AO, IN OUR OPINION, IS BOUND TO CONSIDER THE SA ME WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE SUCC EEDS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN MISC . APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.07.2014 . . . - 2 25 .07.2014 - SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) ( P.M. JAGTAP) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 DATED 25 / 07/2014 .../ A.K.PATEL , PS - 4$ 5$ - 4$ 5$ - 4$ 5$ - 4$ 5$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 6 / THE APPELLANT 2. 476 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8() / THE CIT(A)- MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. 8 / CIT MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. $ 4, , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI D BENCH 6. % / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 7$ 4 //TRUE COPY// / // / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI