THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The solitary ground of appeal is that return of income declaring income of Rs. 362,21,47,890/- was filed on 26th Sep, 2009. Subsequently, revised return of income was filed on 27-09-2010 declaring income at Rs. 371,86,0089/-. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was completed on 25th Nov, 2011 and total

Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee. The relevant part of the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- “2.3. Decision: 1 have carefully perused the order and submission made by the AR of the appellant. The issue is covered by the decision given by me in appellant's own case for A. Y. 2010-11, vide order in Appeal No. CIT(A)-2/DCIT, Cir. 4/174/2013-14 dated 29/01/2015. For the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of the decision is reproduced hereunder:- "The AO has disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the appellant on plant and machinery. The AO has held that since the depreciation was not allowable on parts of important/essential parts of plant and machinery, transport vehicle and on office appliances, the claim was not admissible. The appellant on the other hand has submitted that additional depreciation has not been claimed by it on generation of plant and machinery but the same has been claimed on the plant and machinery which are used in the mining activity. The same has been claimed only on mining machinery and vehicles used in mining activity. The appellant has also submitted a list of mining machinery on which the , additional depreciation has been claimed. On a careful consideration of entire facts of the case, if is noted that the claim of the appellant appears to be allowable. The additional depreciation which has been claimed by it is on the mining machinery and vehicles used in mining activity. The mining activity is considered as a manufacturing activity and, therefore, as per the provisions of the Act, the additional depreciation would be allowable. The appellant has claimed depreciation on vehicles like hydraulic excavator, bulldozer which are used for the purpose of digging mines and not for the road transportation. The appellant has given a list and reconciliation of the additional depreciation claimed. The disallowance is, therefore, directed to be deleted." The ground of appeal is accordingly allowed."

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessing officer had disallowed the claim of additional depreciation of the assesssee on the dumpers, diesel buses, loader tippers, water tanker etc. by treating the same as road transport vehicles. In this regard, it is noticed that the assessee has used equipment in the mining activities and these equipments were used for picking up transporting excavated material in mining area as part and parcel of plant and machinery. The ld. counsel has brought to our noticed at the time of appellate proceedings that identical issue on similar fact in the case of the asssssee itself has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Ahmedabad vide ITA no. 3010/Ahd/2014 dated 13/12/2017 in favour of the assessee. Relevant part of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT is reproduced as under:- “8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee has purchased certain spare parts in respect of the machinery which is used for the purpose of power generation units. We further find that the purchase of spare parts for the machinery was treated as capital expenditure and, therefore, makes the assessee eligible for claim of depreciation and also the claim of additional depreciation on the same. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A).” In the light of the above facts and respectfully the following decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.