DCIT 10(3)(2), V. PLASTI BLENDS INDIA LTD,

MA 193/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5022 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVIKIRAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD , JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , AM MISC. A PPLICATION NO. 193 /MUM/20 15 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6008/MUM/ 20 13 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 ) THE DCIT RANGE 10(3) (2), ROOM NO.217, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED KOLSITE HOUSE, 31, SHAH INDL. ESTATE OFF VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI - 400 053. ./ ./ PAN : AAACP 6287 B ( / APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) MISC. APPLICATION NO.60/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6008/MUM/ 20 13 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 ) PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED KOLSITE HOUSE, 31, SHAH INDL. ESTATE OFF VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI - 400 053 / VS. THE DCIT RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI . / REVENUE BY : SHRI K RAVI KIRAN /RESPONDENT BY : S HRI NITESH JOSHI / DATE OF HEARING : 27.5.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18. 10. 2016 2 MA NO. 193/MUM/2015 AND MA NO.60/MUM/2016 / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: THESE ARE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REV ENUE AND AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES OCCURRED IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 04/03/2015 PASSED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE MA NO.193/MUM/2015 FILED BY THE REVENUE AND M.A.NO.60/MUM/2016 BY THE ASSESSEE. FIRS T WE SHALL TAKE UP THE MISC.APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE.: 2 . THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS THAT WHILE CLAIMING DEPRECIATION THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE CORRECT WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ASSETS AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM DEP RECIATION FOR THE EARLIER YEARS RESULTING INTO HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSET DURING THE YEAR . THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BENCH HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO.4080 & 4081/MUM/2012 DATED 12/9/2014 AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , THE BENCH HAS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE AND IF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ENTERTAINED THEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO RECALL EARLIER ORDERS PASSED BY IT . THEREFORE, THE LD.AR 3 MA NO. 193/MUM/2015 AND MA NO.60/MUM/2016 SUBMITTED THAT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR RECTIFICATION OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM BE REJECTED OUTRIGHT LY . 4 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL ORDER. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASES AND THE REVENUE DID NOT CHALLENGE THESE ORDERS BEFORE ANY HIGHER FORUM AND HENCE REACHED FINALITY . THEREFORE, ON THIS COUNT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE DESERVE D TO BE DISMISSED. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND A CCORDINGLY, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . MISC. APPLICATION NO.60/MUM/2016 5 . IN THIS APPLICATION, THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS ON WHICH THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER AND THUS THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED IN A PROPER MANNER AND THE GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL REMAINED TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REPORTED IN 318 ITR 352 AND THE DEPRECIATION U/S 32 OF THE ACT ON ACTUAL WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS . 6 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 HAS NOT 4 MA NO. 193/MUM/2015 AND MA NO.60/MUM/2016 BEEN DECIDED IN TRUE SPIRIT BY CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THEREFORE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRED T O BE DECIDED AFRESH. HENCE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE AND ALLOW THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 7 . IN RESULT THE , THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED AND THAT OF ASSESSEES IS ALLOWED. . ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH OCT , 201 6 S D SD ( C.N. PRASAD ) ( RAJESH KUMAR) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUM BAI ; DATED : 18. 10. 201 6 SRL,SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, T RUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI