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

MA 118/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2394 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

K IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI. SHRI AMIT SHU KA, JM / MA NO. 118 & 119 /MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1292/MUM/2007 & ITA NO. 7208/ MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05) M/S. CASTROL INDIA LIMITED, TECHNOPOLIS KNOWLEDGE PARK, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD,CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI. -4000 93 / VS. A DDL . 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 B Y : SHRI APURVA SHAH DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI SOMNATH UKKALI + - / DATE OF HEARING : 01-08-2014 + - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-08-2014 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : BY THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKIN G RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20-12-2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1292/MUM/2007 AND 7208/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 20-12-2013 (SUPRA IS BEING SOUGHT T O BE RECTIFIED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT READ AS UNDE R: DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION FOR UNIT LOCATED AT SILVASSA (AMOUNTING TO RS.12,69 ,32,007/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04) ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIAT ION IN THE PAST AND THE MATTER WAS STILL SUB JUDICE. MA 118 & 119/MUM/2014 2 2. THE APPELLANT HAD A UNIT LOCATED AT SILVASSA AN D THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS LOCATED THEREAT FROM AY. 199 7-98 TILL AY. 2001-02. THE APPELLANT STARTED CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSETS FROM A.Y. 2002-03. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER HAD THRUST DEPREC IATION ON THE APPELLANT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. FROM AY 1997-98 TILL AY 2001-02 AND ONLY CONSEQUENTLY COMPUTED DEPRECIATION FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ON T HE BASIS OF THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2002/31 ST MARCH, 2003 AFTER HAVING INCLUDED DEPRECIATION WHI CH WAS THRUST DOWN THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS HIS CONSEQUENTIA L CALCULATION WHICH RESULTED IN A DENIAL TO THE APPELLANT OF DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTE NT CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR. 4. THE ABOVE MATTER IS COVERED ON PAGE 24, PARAGRA PH 49 OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE ITAT DATED 20 TH DECEMBER, 2013. THE MATTER WAS ADJUDICATED FOLLOW ING THE ADJUDICATION DONE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE SAID GROUND IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13 TH APRIL, 2009 PASSED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 FOLLOWING THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SCOPE INDU STRIES PVT. LTD. 289 ITR 195 AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y . 2000-01 AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND WAS DIMISSED. 5. ADMITTEDLY, AS MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR AS WELL, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER CLAIMING OF DEPRECIATION FOR UPTO A.Y. 2001 -02 IS MANDATORY OR OTHERWISE IS AS OF NOW COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN 289 ITR 195 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PLAS TIBLENDS LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT REPORTED AT 318 ITR 352. 6. HOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPELLA NT HAS ACTUALLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. HENCE IN THE EVENT THAT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AS OF 31 ST MARCH, 2002/31 ST MARCH, 2003 UNDERGOES A CHANGE, THE DEPRECIATION C LAIMED FOR THIS YEAR WOULD NEED TO BE CONSEQUENTIALLY CHANGED. 7. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS WAS NOT ARTICULATED CO RRECTLY BEFORE YOUR GOOD SELF BY OUR 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 GIV EN SUITABLE EFFECT TO IF AND WHEN THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS OF 31 ST MARCH, 2002 /31 ST MARCH, 2003 UNDERGOES A CHANGE. 8. 8. CONSEQUENTLY, THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE HONB LE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT COMPLETELY DEAL WITH THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL. 9. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT AN ADDITIONAL DIREC TION BE KINDLY GIVEN BY THIS HONBLE ITAT THAT THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR UND ER APPEAL BE REDETRMINED WHENEVER THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AT THE END OF THE PRECEDING YEAR VIZ, AS AT 31ST MARCH 2002/31 ST MARCH, 2003 UNDERGOES A CHANGE. 10. IT IS ALSO PRAYED THAT THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUS E THE APPELLANT HAS FILED SPLCIAL LEAVE PETITIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE OR DERS OF 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 ET THE END OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. MA 118 & 119/MUM/2014 3 11. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE NOT GIVING OF S UCH A DIRECTION RESULTS IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT NOT BEING COMPLETELY ADJUDICATED AND IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND A LSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT AN M A BEING MA NO. 117/MUM/2014 WAS EARLIER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE SIMILAR MISTAKES ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14-09-2 012 PASSED IN ITA NO. 4413/MUM/2010 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND THE SAME HAS ALR EADY BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 3 OF ITS ORDER DATED 25-07-2014:- WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A DIRECTION FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DEPRECIATI ON FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BE RE- DETERMINED WHENEVER WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AT THE END O F 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 GROUND NO.3 AND IT THEREFORE CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT GIVING SUCH DIRECTION. MOREOVER THE ISSUE OF RE-DETERMINING THE DEPRECATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS A RESULT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE CLOSING WRI TTEN DOWN VALUE IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE EAR LIER YEARS IS PURELY A CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUE AND THE AO, IN OUR OPINION, IS BOUND TO CONSI DER THE SAME WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO M ERIT IN MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL DATED 25-07-2014 (SUPRA) FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, WE DISMISS THESE M ISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01-08-2014 . . . + 2 3 01-08-2014 + SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ( P.M. JAGTAP) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 3 DATED 01-08-2014 MA 118 & 119/MUM/2014 4 .../R.K. SR. PS ' #%& '& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 8 / THE APPELLANT 2. 9:8 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. () / THE CIT(A)- MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. / CIT MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. 9> , - > , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI D BENCH 6. @ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, : 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI