ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the revised assessment order disallowing additional depreciation became infructuous as a prior Tribunal order had already set aside the CIT's Section 263 order and restored the original assessment allowing the claim.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed additional depreciation claimed by the assessee, a power transmission company. This disallowance was made in a revised assessment after the original assessment order allowing the claim was set aside by the CIT under Section 263.
What were the issues?
Whether a revised assessment order disallowing a claim is valid when a prior appellate order has already restored the original assessment allowing the same claim.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President:- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Kolkata dated 15.03.2018 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance of Rs.19,26,87,056/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation.
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of transmission of electricity. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.11.2010, the loss of the assessee-company for the year under consideration was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.12,95,32,780/-. The said Assessment Year: 2008-2009 M/s. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Limited assessment was subsequently set aside by the Concerned ld. CIT vide an order passed under section 263 and in the fresh assessment made under section 143(3) read with section 263 vide an order dated 03.03.2014, an addition, inter alia was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation amounting to Rs.19,26,87,056/-.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of its claim for additional depreciation. Meanwhile, the appeal against the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 was also filed by the assessee and while disposing of the same vide its order dated 21.10.2016 passed in the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 on the issue of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation thereby restoring the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30.11.2010 passed under section 143(3), wherein the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was allowed. Keeping in view this decision rendered by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.10.2016 (supra), the ld. CIT(Appeals) treated the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 as null and void on this issue and held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the said order on account of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation stood deleted. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the order originally passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) on 30.11.2010 allowing the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was set aside by the concerned ld. CIT vide an order dated 15.03.2013 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 M/s. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Limited passed under section 263 with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh on this issue. Accordingly, in the fresh order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 vide an order dated 03.03.2014, the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT dated 15.03.2013 passed under section 263 and while disposing of the same vide its order dated 21.10.2016 (supra), the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 on the issue of the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation and restored the order of the Assessing Officer passed originally under section 143(3) on 30.11.2010, whereby the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Consequently the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 on 03.03.2014 on the issue of disallowance of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation became infructuous or nullity as rightly held by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the said disallowance stood automatically deleted as a result of the Tribunal’s order restoring the order originally filed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) on 30.11.2011, wherein the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was allowed. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 18, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (A.T. Varkey) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Vice-President) Kolkata, the 18th day of December, 2019 Copies to : (1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), KolkataP, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 M/s. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Limited
(2) M/s. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Limited, Bidyut Bhawan, 9 th Floor, Sector-II, Block-DJ, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700091
(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata; (4) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata- , Kolkata;
(5) The Departmental Representative
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026