D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

order

: June 23rd, 2021 ORDER

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM:

are covered by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2014-15 in order dated 30.09.2020.

4. On the issue of claim of additional depreciation, the Tribunal at para-4 held as follows: “4. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A) has placed reliance upon this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s orders (supra) in assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on the very issue whilst deleting the impugned disallowance coupled with this, yet another coordinate bench in departmental appeal ITA No. 1055/Kol/2018 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 22.11.2019 has adopted the judicial consistency in declining Revenue’s identical grievance. Its pleadings are fair enough in not pinpointing any distinction on fact and law in all

Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Universal Cables Ltd. these assessment years qua this issue of additional depreciation. We therefore reject the Revenue’s instant former substantive ground for this precise reason alone.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal, we dismiss ground no. 1 of the Revenue.

5. Next comes the Revenue’s latter substantive grievance seeking to revive section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) proportionate interest and administrative expenditure disallowance(s) of Rs.2,70,00,000/- and 25,52,000/-; aggregating to Rs.2,95,52,000/- made in the course of assessment and restored back to the Assessing Officer for examining the assessee’s factual claim not to have utilized any interest bearing funds for making the exempt income yielding investments qua the former limb followed by further directions to take into account only the exempt income yielding investments; respectively. The CIT(A) has admittedly gone by the tribunal’s findings in earlier assessment year(s) in tune with yet another coordinate bench’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol) as upheld in hon’ble jurisdictional high court in G. A. No. 3581 of 2013 to this effect. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut this clinching fact that the CIT(A) has adopted judicial consistency wherein the twin clinching factual issues have been restored back to Assessing Officer for factual verification qua the corresponding facts and figures only. We therefore see no merit in the instant latter substantive ground as well.