ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6305/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 June 2022AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in favour of the assessee, noting that the Revenue had not presented any new material to distinguish the current case. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee contended that this issue was settled in their favour in previous assessment years, including an appeal upheld by the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was eligible for additional depreciation on plant and machinery. Whether the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in previous years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(iia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CA, Shri Ashish Mediratta, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2022Pronounced: 15.06.2022

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the ld.

CIT(A) - 35, New Delhi dated 29.05.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'].

3.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that this quarrel has been settled by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in earlier Assessment Years starting from 2007-08 to 2015-16. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that in Assessment Year 2007-08, the deletion of the addition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

4.

The ld. DR fairly conceded to this.

5.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. This Tribunal in order dated 11.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 has decided the quarrel as under:

9.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground of Revenue is 6 with respect to allowing the claim of additional depreciation. We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue has noted that the facts of the case under consideration were similar to A.Y. 2007-08. We further find that while deciding the identical issue in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 19.03.2021 and following the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in order dated 05.01.2021 for A.Y. 2013-14 held the issue to be covered in assessee’s favour. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the facts in the case in the year under consideration and that of earlier years are different and distinguishable and further no material has been placed by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier years has been stayed/ set aside/ overruled by higher judicial forum. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.”

6.

Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed.

1.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2022 in the presence of both the rival representatives.

More judgments on Section 32(1)(iia)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →