DCIT RG- 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARCHROMA INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2917/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 February 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to take the Written Down Value (WDV) of assets as per the ITAT's order for the previous year as the opening WDV for the current year. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this direction.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to rework depreciation based on the closing WDV of the preceding year, adjusted by the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee argued that the ITAT had further modified the previous year's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to rework depreciation based on the preceding year's WDV, considering the pending appeal before the ITAT for that year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit
Hearing: 09.02.2021Pronounced: 10.02.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 5.2.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under :- i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in concluding that the subject matter of the present appeal was consequential in nature thereby directing the AO to rework the allowable depreciation by taking the closing WDV for preceding year AY 2014-15 as the opening WDV for the relevant year without appreciating that the decision for AY 2014-15 has not been accepted by the department and appeal is still pending before the Hon'ble ITAT? ii) The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3. Learned CIT(A) has passed following appellate order in this case :- “I have considered the rival contentions. I find that the subject matter of this appeal is consequential in nature. I find that the appellant claimed depreciation of Rs. 33,96,90,320/ in its return of income. The AO observed that in the assessment order for the AY 2014-15, his predecessor had denied

2 M/s. Archroma India Private Limited depreciation in respect of certain items and had reworked the depreciation. In the Assessment order for the AY 2015-16, the AO recomputed the allowable depreciation. While computing depreciation, the AO took the closing WDV as at 31.03.2014 (as per the assessment order for the AY 2014- 15) as the opening WDV as at 01.04.2014.

The appellant has pointed out that the CIT(A) had partly allowed its appeal against the disallowance of depreciation for AY 2014-15. The AR contended that the depreciation ought to be reworked based on the closing WDV as at 31.03.2014 after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) for the AY 2014-15. Considering the fact that the CIT(A) had partly allowed its appeal against the disallowance of depreciation for AY 2014-15, I direct the AO to rework the depreciation to be allowed after taking the closing WDV in pursuant to the order of the CIT(A) dated 21.08.2018 for the AY 2014-15 as the opening WDV as at.”

4.

Against this order Revenue is in appeal before us.

5.

We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the ITAT in appeal for previous year has further modified the learned CIT(A)’s order. He pleaded that the Assessing Officer may be directed to take the WDV of asset pursuant to that order for the opening WDV of those asset for computing depreciation for the year.

6.

Learned Departmental Representative did not have objection to this proposition. Accordingly, we direct that the WDV of opening balance of asset for this year may be taken as the WDV for previous year computed pursuant to ITAT order for earlier year.

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed. 7.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by placing the result on notice board on 10.2.2021.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →