Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad V. The Asstt. DIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

MA 149/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4948 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.S. SHUKLA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 32(1)(iia); 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ᭠यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, M.A No.149/Ahd/2021 In आयकर अपील सं./In ITA No. 2389/Ahd/2015 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Prahaladnagar Garden, 701 Parshwanath E Square, Near Titanium, Building Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN: AAACJ19592P Vs. A.D.I.T. (International Tax), Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/03/2022 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/03/2022 PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee by way of this Miscellaneous Application has requested to rectify the error in the order of the ITAT in ITA No. 2389/Ahd/2015 being a mistake apparent from the record. M.A No.149/AHD/2021 In ITA No.2389/Ahd/2015 Asstt. Year 2006-07 2 2. The assessee in the Miscellaneous Application has submitted that it has claimed deduction u/s 42 of the Act, in its income tax return which was disallowed by the AO. However, the AO was pleased to grant depreciation on the asset being Oil well and Oil field equipment at the rate of 10%. 3. On appeal the Tribunal after making reliance in the own case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 3988/Ahd/2018 vide order dated 31/12/2019 was pleased to allow the depreciation of the assessee at the rate of 60%. However, the ITAT inadvertently in its finding has directed to delete the addition made by the AO on account of the depreciation. As such it was to be directed to allow the depreciation at the rate of 60% as there was no addition made by the AO. Thus the Ld. A.R requested to rectify the mistake apparent from the record. 4. On the contrary the Ld. DR has not controverted the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the ITAT was pleased to allow the depreciation to the assessee after making reference to the order of the ITAT in ITA No.3988/Ahd/2018 for the Assessment Hear 2005-06 vide order dated 31/12/2019 in the own case of the assessee. But due to the mistake, the ITAT has directed the AO to delete the addition made by him, though there was not any addition made by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Thus the question of deleting the addition made by the AO does not arise. Accordingly, we rectify the para 26.1 of the order of the ITAT as detailed under: M.A No.149/AHD/2021 In ITA No.2389/Ahd/2015 Asstt. Year 2006-07 3 Accordingly we direct the AO to allow depreciation at the rate of 60% on the oil well and oil field equipment as plant & machinery as provided Entry II(8)(xii) as Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5.1 Hence, the ground raised in the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. 6. The second grievance of the assessee is that it has raised the ground for allowing the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act, which has not been adjudicated by the ITAT inadvertently. Thus the Ld. AR requested the bench to recall the impugned order to the extent of the issue with respect to additional depreciation for fresh hearing as per law. 7. On the contrary Ld. DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR for the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the assessee in ground no. 3 has requested for allowing the additional depreciation on the Oil field and oil field equipment but the ITAT has omitted to adjudicate the additional depreciation claimed u/s 36(1)(iia) of the Act inadvertently which is a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 9. Thus the registry is directed to fix the case for a fresh hearing on 26/04/2022 for the limited purpose as discussed above. As the date of hearing has been pronounced in the open court, the requirement of intimating the M.A No.149/AHD/2021 In ITA No.2389/Ahd/2015 Asstt. Year 2006-07 4 date of hearing to the respective parties is dispensed with. Hence, the grievance of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 23/03/2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 23/03/2022 Manish