PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 204/2018 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ajmer Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus M/s Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd , Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makarwali Road Ajmer ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat for Mr. R.B. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 24/07/2018 1. Defects are waived. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department. 3. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in confirming the decision of ld. CIT(A) and deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.13,93,62,200/- for disallowance of prior period expenses, disallowance of depreciation on non-existing assets and disallowance of depreciation claimed on excess cost of the assets in view of Explanation 10 to sub section 1 of section 43.”

(2 of 2) [ITA-204/2018] 4. However, now the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this court in ITA No.19/2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. M/s. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.& other connected matters) decided on 3.4.2018 which reads as under:- “4. The facts of the case are that the return declaring income Nil filed on 31.10.2002 than it had been revised at income of Rs.49,70,09,117/-

before

allowing depreciation was filed on 31.10.2003 shown in the return as Nil income. Later on the order u/s 143(3) was made. The order u/s 143(2)/148 was made as per the direction u/s 144A issued by worthy Addl. CIT, Rage-2, Ajmer on 23.12.2008. While completing the assessment the following additions were made:- (i) Depreciation disallowed on non existing assets: Rs:21,60,26,673/- (ii) Depreciation disallowed u/s 43(1) explanation 10 Rs.18,99,41,047/- 5. Counsel for the appellant states that in all these appeals, the matters may be remitted back to the tribunal on the main issue. In that view of the matter, he would like to file rectification application before the tribunal and request the tribunal to heard all these matters together. 6. In view of the above, all these appeals stand disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move rectification application before the tribunal with a request to hear all the matters together. If such a request is made before the tribunal, we hope that the tribunal will decide all the matters together.” 5. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises. 6. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S. JHAVERI),J Brijesh 7.