DCIT - 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD., MUMBAI

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-53, Mumbai dated 31/5/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In this appeal, Revenue is aggrieved for allowing depreciation @30% instead of 15%. We have considered rival contentions and found that issue is covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2011- 12. The CIT(A) has also deleted the addition after following the order of the Tribunal. The precise observation was as under:- 5.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the materials available on record. The question for determination is M/s. MIRC Electronics Ltd., whether the A.O. was justified in restricting the claim of depreciation on plastic moulds at 15% as against 30% claimed by the appellant. It is (bund that the issue under appeal stands covered in favour of the appellant by ihe aforesaid orders of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in its own case. The relevant extract of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 1 3,03.201 3 is reproduced below:- "We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. It is a question of allowance of depreciation ^30% vis-a-vis 25%. The contention of (he assessee that in (he past, such depreciation has been granted @30%. Learned CIT(A) had invoked Section 263 and order of Id.CIT was quashed by the Tribunal Therefore, in view of (he consistency, we are of the opinion that the claim of the assessee should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer as no new facts have been brought on record to justify for different stand taken during the year under consideration and such view is supported by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoaini Satsang v. OT{193 ITR 321). Accordingly, this ground of the appellant is allowed". It is also noticed that vide its orders dated 18.03.2013 and 29.05.2015 for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively, the Hon'ble Tribunal has directed the A.O. to allow depreciation on moulds at 30% as claimed by it. Since there is no change in either the facts of the case or the legal position on this issue, it is held that the appellant is entitled to claim depreciation on moulds @30% respectfully following the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble IT AT. The A.O. is, therefore, directed to allow depreciation on moulds @30% as claimed by the appellant. Ground No.2 of the present appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing claim of depreciation at 30% instead of 15%.