DCIT, New Delhi V. SB Packaging Ltd., New Delhi

MA 483/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4003 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA. No.483/DEL/2018 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.5318/DEL/2014) Assessment Year 2008-09 DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi. vs. M/s. S.B. Packagins Ltd., 3 rd Floor, Vardhaman Plaza Corner Inder Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi. TAN/PAN: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 10 06 2022 Date of pronouncement: 10 06 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: The captioned Misc. Application has been preferred by the Revenue arising from the appellate order of the Tribunal in ITA No.5318/Del/2014 order dated 27.02.2018. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has allowed depreciation at an accelerated rate of 30% on ‘injection moulding machine’ which is not akin to ‘moulds’ contemplated in schedule of depreciation as provided in the Act. It was pointed out that before the CIT(A), the assessee had claimed depreciation at higher rate on the ground that the assessee company is operating on triple shift basis and thus tried to justify depreciation on injection moulding machine at higher rate. The accelerated depreciation was allowed by the CIT(A) on a wrong footing by categorizing M.A. No. 483/DEL/2018 2 ‘Injection Moulding Machine’ as ‘Moulds’ for the purpose of depreciation @ 30% as per {III 3 (Vii)} of Part A of new Appendix of Income Tax Rules which reads as : “Moulds used in rubber and plastic factories – 30% and wrongly endorsed by ITAT. It was thus contended that the Tribunal has erred in equating ‘Mould’ defined in English Dictionary as “a hollow container used to give shape to molten or hot liquid material when it cools and hardens with ‘Injection Molding Machine” which is an ordinary machine. It was thus submitted that since the assessee was not using any moulds, higher rate of depreciation was not eligible to the assessee as wrongly concluded by the Tribunal. It was contended that the Tribunal has committed apparent error in accepting the claim of the assessee for higher rate of depreciation. 3. Ld. DR for the Revenue further pointed out some clerical mistake such as (i) the original return of income was incorrectly recorded to be filed on 29.09.2018 as against the correct date of 29.09.2008 as per paragraph no. 2 of the order; (ii) none had attended for the assessee whereas in paragraphs 8 and 9 the Tribunal made contractor observation that the ld. AR for the assessee made submissions and in paragraph 9 the conclusion was drawn after hearing both sides which is contrary to the facts of the case. Ld. DR accordingly sought suitable rectification of the order of the Tribunal. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that except for the typographical error in paragraphs 8 and 9 towards attendance on behalf of the assessee which has no adverse effect in the conclusion, no error can be visualized in the order of the ITAT. It was submitted that the assessee has been claiming accelerated depreciation for last many years which has been accepted by the Department and consequently doctrine of consistency needs to apply. Also, the factum of assessee-company operating triple shift was present to the mind of the Tribunal as can be seen in paragraph 9 of its order. It was thus contended that no apparent error can be envisaged in the factual matrix. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions on purported mistakes, we find M.A. No. 483/DEL/2018 3 that the substantive error sought to be rectified on behalf of the Revenue towards classification of ‘Injection Moulding Machine’ involves long drawn understanding and process of reasoning. Eligibility of depreciation at accelerated rate or at a normal rate cannot said to be in the realm of mistake apparent from record envisaged under Section 254(2) of the Act. We are in parity with arguments raised on behalf of the assessee for absence of error akin to apparent mistake. The Tribunal is thus functus officio and has no jurisdiction to correct the alleged error which is in the nature of review. 6. In the result, the Misc. Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/06/2022. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /06/2022 Prabhat