Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RIFAUR REHMAN&
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 29.12.2016 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2014-15 with the following grounds: 1. “The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in applying the cost sharing formula for determining the cost of assert owned by the assessee for the purpose of depreciation.
DCIT vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Assessment Year 2014-15 - 2 - 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing common expenditure in full included in pending capitalization. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO.”
At the time of hearing of the matter, the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly submitted before us that the issues as raised by the Revenue are squarely covered in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years by the order passed by this Learned Tribunal. Copies whereof were also handed over to us. The Learned DR with all his fairness not objected the submission made by the Learned AR.
We have heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record including the order passed by the Hon’ble ITAT in for A.Y. 2013-14, which has also followed the order passed earlier in ITA No.1803/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13. Relevant portion whereof is as follows: “8. We have heard the both the sides and perused the material on record carefully and noticed that identical issues of both the grounds of appeal
have been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in favor of the assessee vide ITA No. 1803/Ahd/2016 assessment year 2012-13 in the case of assessee itself. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under:- “4. We have carefully considered the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. These two issues have been considered by the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case filed by the Revenue in ITA No.944/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08 vide order dated 05.09.2014, ITA No.420 & CO No.80/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 29.04.2016, ITA Nos.717 & 911/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 21.12.2016 & ITA No.265/Ahd/2015 for I.T.A No. 3281/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No DCIT vs. M/s. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
6. A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 15.09.2017 and decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.”
DCIT vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Assessment Year 2014-15 - 3 -
Regarding common expenditure included in incidental expenditure, the Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide dated 11th Sep, 2017 has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. Relevant part of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced as under:- “5. We have carefully considered the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in assessee’s own case in Tax Appeal No. 449 of 2004 with 477 of 2004 with 479 of 2004 to 488 of 2004 had the occasion to consider similar issues and has decided the issues in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This has been followed by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 717 and 911/Ahd/2014.” Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT as supra, we do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground appeal of the revenue is also dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”
In that view of the matter, respectfully relying upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on the identical issue in assessee’s own case we find no justification in interfering in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, Revenue’s appeal is found to be devoid of merit and thus dismissed.