BHISHMA REALTY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, dated 23.02.18 for AY 2013-14. 2 & 6906/Mum/2017 Late Anilkumar R. Aggarwal (Legal Heir Smt Saranga Aggarwal) 2. The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on motor car amounting to Rs. 6,29,859/- holding the same should be added to the work-in- progress.

At the outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that these ground are squarely covered by the order of Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in for AY 2012-13 in assessee’s own case, wherein the identical grounds raised in the present appeal have already been decided on merits.

On the other hand, Ld. DR fairly agreed to the contention of Ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of assessee.

We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment cited by the parties as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate 3 & 6906/Mum/2017 Late Anilkumar R. Aggarwal (Legal Heir Smt Saranga Aggarwal) Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 1476/Mum/17 for AY 2012-13 in assessee’s own case. The operative portion of the order of ITAT passed in ITA No. 1476/Mum/17 is contained in para no. 10 to 13, which are reproduced below:- 10. The Ld. AR also drawn our attention to the fact that the claim of depreciation in the case of the assessee has been accepted for the A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act vide letter dated 26.03.2013 and 13.03.2014 respectively. Thus, requested for deletion of disallowance of depreciation. 11. Considering the submissions as mentioned above, we noticed that all the above facts have not been considered by the CIT(A) while disposing this ground. The only reason mentioned by CIT(A) in its order for not interfering the finding of the A.O is by mentioning that the A.O has rightly transfer the depreciation as so as the other expenses are transferred in work-in-progress. 12. Be that as it may, considering the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that ends of the justice would be met only if this ground is allowed for statistical purposes by setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitting back to the file of the A.O for afresh decision after taking into consideration of the 4 I.T.A. No. 4421 & 6906/Mum/2017 Late Anilkumar R. Aggarwal (Legal Heir Smt Saranga Aggarwal) above facts. It is needless to mention that before passing the order, the A.O shall provide opportunity to the assessee and assessee shall also extend all necessary cooperation to the A.O in expeditious disposal of this matter. 13. Before parting we may make it clear that our decision to resore the mater back to the file of the A.O shall in no way be construed having any reflection or expression, merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by A.O independently in accordance with law. With these directions this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and order of ITAT as mentioned above, we find that identical issues have already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in for AY 2012-13 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency and judicial discipline, we apply the same findings which are 5 I.T.A. No. 4421 & 6906/Mum/2017 Late Anilkumar R. Aggarwal (Legal Heir Smt Saranga Aggarwal) applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Therefore, we order accordingly.