M/s.Amalgam Foods P.ltd, Cochin V. DCIT, Alappuzha

MA 85/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9359 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 MA NO. 85/COCH/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) M.A. NO.85/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 24/COCH/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) M/S AMALGAM FOODS LTD VS DY.C.I.T., CIR.1 WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI ALLEPPEY PAN : AABCA8283D (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R SREENIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 30-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-11-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 29-06-2012. 2. SHRI R SREENIVASAN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HEARD M.A. NOS.23 & 24/COCH/2012 TOGETHER. HOWEVER, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THIS TRIBUNAL THROUGH 2 MA NO. 85/COCH/2012 OVERSIGHT HAS NOT INCLUDED M.A. NO.24/COCH/2012 IN THE PREAMBLE PORTION. HOWEVER, AT PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SAID THAT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. T HEREFORE, THE INTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPLICATION S SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ARISEN FOR CONSIDERATION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUB MITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OF ONLY ONE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AN ERROR AT ALL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TAXPAYER HAS TAK EN SPECIFIC GROUND IN BOTH THE APPEALS THAT EVEN IF THE INCOME IS CLASSIF IED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION . WHILE DISPOSING OF THIS GROUND, THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 56(II) OF THE ACT FOUND THAT THE TAXPAYER IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION. WHEN THE TAXPAYER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT U/S 56(II) OF THE ACT R.W.S. 57(II) THE TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIA TION EVEN IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH WAS CLASSIFIED AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES, THE TRIBUNAL 3 MA NO. 85/COCH/2012 FOUND THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS RECTIFIED BY AN ORDER DATED 29-06-2012. I N THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER AT PARAGRAPH 6, THE TRIBUNAL CATEGORIC ALLY STATED THAT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE TAXPAYER ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THEREF ORE, THE INTENTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONS, VIZ. M.A.NOS 23 & 24/COCH/2012. AS SUCH, THE NON-MENTIO NING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.24/COCH/2012 IS RECTIF IED AS FOLLOWS: AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AT LINE 4 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE NAME OF THE MEMBER, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED: M.A. NO.23 & 24/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS 435 & 436/COCH/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07) INSTEAD OF M.A. NO.23/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS 435 & 436/COCH/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07) 4 MA NO. 85/COCH/2012 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 29-06-2012 SHALL BE TREATED AS ORDER IN M.A. NOS. 23 & 24/COCH /2012. THEREFORE, IT IS APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE TAXPAYER IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH