Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
ITA No. 3416/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 11/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. CLP India Pvt Ltd Assessment Year : 2009-10 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar, VP and Ms. Madhumita Roy, JM] ITA No. 3416/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 11/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax .......…………...........Appellant Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad Vs. CLP India Pvt Ltd ............................Respondent (formerly known as Gujarat Paguthan & Cross-Objector Energy Corporation Pvt Ltd) 6th Floor, Chankya Building, Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 009 [PAN No. AAACG 7999 P] Appearances by: Mudit Nagpal, for the Appellant SN Soparkar & Parin Shah, for the Respondent & Cross-objector Date of concluding the hearing : 13.03.2019 Date of pronouncing the order : 14.03.2019 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, Vice President : 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 30th September 2015, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10.
Grievance raised by the appellant is as follows:-
“The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in holding that the depreciation claim of Rs.184,44,02,413/- on opening WDV of assets does not include the depreciation on assets sold during the year and thereby right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,14,27,424/-”
Briefly states, relevant material facts are like this. During the course of reopened assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.1,14,27,424/- on account of depreciation on assets sold during the relevant previous year. This inference about inadmissible claim of depreciation was based on the calculation shown in the depreciation chart. The stand of the assessee that no
ITA No. 3416/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 11/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. CLP India Pvt Ltd Assessment Year : 2009-10 Page 2 of 3 depreciation was infact claimed on the assets sold was brushed aside. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) deleted the impugned disallowance and observed as follows:-
“On careful consideration of entire facts, it is observed that appellant has claimed depreciation of Rs. 200,37,89,806/- on opening WDV of assets, assets put to use for more than 180 days and asset put to use for less than 180 days only. Though Tax Audit Report submitted by appellant contains the column for depreciation on assets sold separately, the quantum of Rs.1,14,27,424/- worked out in this column is not part of claim of depreciation in Return of Income. The Tax Auditor has separately shown above computation for control purpose. Further, on verification of depreciation chart as submitted by Appellant, it is observed that appellant has claimed depreciation on opening block of assets and while computing opening block of assets, appellant has not considered WDV of assets sold during the year, which further substantiate appellant's claim that no depreciation is in fact claimed on assets sold during the year. The quantum of depreciation on assets sold in tax audit represents total accumulated depreciation claimed on assets sold during the year and not depreciation computed on these assets. It is observed that in the case of office equipment there is separate line item of fax machine of Rs.25,600/- on which accumulated depreciation is claimed at Rs. 21,249/-. The above referred Rs. 21,249/- was considered as part of depreciation on asset sold and it is observed that while claiming depreciation on opening WDV of assets, this asset is not considered as part of block of assets. Similar is the case for paper shredder machine, mobile phones, etc. Considering these facts, Assessing Officer has made entire addition without appreciating the fact that appellant has not claimed depreciation on assets sold during the year and addition of Rs.1,14,27,424/-made by Assessing Officer is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.”
Aggrieved by the relief so granted by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer is in appeal before us.
Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we see no reasons to interfere in the matter. As learned CIT(A) observes, there is nothing to show that the assessee had actually claimed any depreciation in respect of the assets sold during the relevant previous year. The computation relied upon by the assessee was part of disclosure information in the financial statements and the actual claim in the computation of income did not take into account. In any event, learned Departmental Representative has not brought any material on record to dislodge these findings of the CIT(A).
ITA No. 3416/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 11/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. CLP India Pvt Ltd Assessment Year : 2009-10 Page 3 of 3 6. In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve well reasoned findings of the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The Cross-Objection filed by the assessee was not pressed before us; therefore, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
In the result, the appeal and cross-objection – both are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 14th March, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
Ms. Madhumita Roy Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Ahmedabad, the 14th day of March, 2019 *bt Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order