Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the AO's addition. The case involved proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's representative did not appear, and the case proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed judicial consistency from previous assessment years and the Tribunal's own adjudications regarding similar issues. Finding no factual or legal distinction, the Tribunal upheld the impugned action of the lower authorities.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was entitled to claim expenses and depreciation related to power generation equipment against income earned from power generation, and whether the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the AO's addition based on judicial consistency was justified.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 21.01.2019 passed in case no. 3/10265/2018-19, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is according proceeded ex-parte.
The learned departmental representative invites our attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion upholding the impugned assessment findings as under: “4.2 I have perused the facts of the case and the submission made by the AR. The AR has contended that the AO has not appreciated the facts completely. It is further submitted that the issue is pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court for adjudication in earlier years. However, on perusal of the complete facts, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly held that the appellant ought to have claimed/adjusted the expenses and depreciation related to the power generation equipment against the income earned from power generation. This view is further fortified by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in a connected case of M/s RRB Energy Ltd. for AY 2007-08 in dated 11.05.2012 on which my Ld. Predecessor has also relied while deciding the cases of the appellant in AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. The addition made on similar issue in AY 2009- 10 and 2015-16 has also been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). As the facts and circumstances in the present appeal are similar, following the principle of judicial consistency, the addition made by the AO is upheld and the ground of appeal
is dismissed.”
4. Suffice to say, it has already come on record that the CIT(A) had adopted judicial consistency whilst following his order as well as the tribunal’s adjudication against the assessee in the preceding assessment year.
5. That being the case and in light of the fact that there is no distinction either on fact or in law in all these assessment years, we find no reason to adopt a different approach herein in the instant appeal. Both the learned lower authorities’ impugned action rejecting the assessee’s deduction claim stand upheld in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 2 | P a g e