PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT 1 vs. M/S H D ENTERPRISE

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/356/2020HC GujaratGJHC24053225202003 December 2020Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law proposed by the Revenue could not be termed as a substantial question of law. The Court noted that a coordinate bench of the High Court had previously considered the very same question of law in a batch of Tax Appeals, including Tax Appeal No. 414 of 2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Durga Construction Company), decided on May 1, 2018, where all such appeals had failed on the proposed question of law. Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot, filed a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, dated February 28, 2020. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2011-12 and concerned the rate of depreciation allowed on dumpers. The Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation at 15%. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who deleted the addition made on account of excess depreciation. The Revenue then appealed to the ITAT, which affirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the decision of CIT(A) granting a higher rate of depreciation @30% on dumpers as against depreciation @ 15% allowed by the assessing officer? (Question of law and fact, concerning depreciation rates). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a higher rate of depreciation (30%) on dumpers, contrary to the 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue relied on the proposed question of law for consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/356/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 356 of 2020 ========================================================== PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT 1 Versus M/S H D ENTERPRISE ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 03/12/2020

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH)

This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot dated 28th February, 2020 in the ITA No. 110/RJT/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law for consideration of this Court: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the decision of CIT(A) granting C/TAXAP/356/2020 ORDER higher rate of depreciation @30% on dumpers as against depreciation @ 15% allowed by the assessing officer?”

We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue.

We take notice of the fact that the very same question of law as proposed in the present appeal was taken into consideration by a coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of Tax Appeals, the main appeal being Tax Appeal No. 414 of 2018 (Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Durga Construction Company) decided on 1st May, 2018. All the appeals failed on the proposed question of law.

In case on hand, it appears that the Assessing Officer granted depreciation on the dumpers at the rate of 15%. The assessee being dissatisfied, went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(for short “CIT (A)”). The CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of C/TAXAP/356/2020 ORDER excess depreciation. The Revenue being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A) went in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A).

Having regard to the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court referred to above and even otherwise, we are of the view that the question of law as proposed cannot be termed as substantial question of law. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) A. B. VAGHELA/A.M.PIRZADA

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →