MR. SUMIT DEV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA No. 6197/DEL/2012 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.09.2013 of the CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi relating to A.Y. 2009-10 whereas filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.09.2015 of the ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relating to A.Y 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Facts of the case, in brief are that the assessee is an individual having business of import, export and trading of computer printers and computer components and derived income from the same alongwith house property. He filed his return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 20,37,090/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 31,92,409/- under the head ‘depreciation’. In the balance sheet under the head ‘fixed asset’, there is a sub head ‘printer’ wherein the assessee has shown addition of Rs. 50,61,465/- and claimed depreciation of Rs. 30,37,129/- @ 60% on such printer. The A.O, therefore, asked the assessee to justify the claim of deprecation @ 60@ on such printers. The assessee submitted a copy of bill of the same issued by MS Caldron Graphics wherein description of the product was given as CJF-9312SPT 510 INKJET PRINTER. The A.O also issued a notice u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to M/s Caldron Graphics who confirmed to have sold the above goods to the assessee alongwith ledger account. Since the amount of Rs. 50,61,465/- was unusually high, the A.O deputed an inspector of the ward to conduct necessary enquiry from M/s Caldron Graphics to understand the product and its use and category for claiming depreciation as per the Income-tax Act.

The Inspector reported that the premise of the assessee is located at F-3/13, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. They are dealing in trading of products used in printing for advertisement like printing machines on Acrylic, print heads, related cartridges and other allied products and all the products sold by them are used for commercial purposes only. The size of the printer is about 10*4*2 Feet [L*H*W]. It has about 10 heads. It has space for CPU and monitor to be attached with it. The commands are given by the computer system attached to it and the printer prints the material as desired. It requires once attendant to monitor the whole process. The Inspector also visited the premises of Shri Sumit Dev and found that no such machine was installed at the premises of the assessee and as per the set up of the office, it seems that the office is used for trading purposes only and no printing work is done. The A.O, therefore, issued notice u/s 131 of the Act to Shri Sumit Dev who appeared before the A.O and deposed as under:

Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on nomenclature of the machine as printer. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Container Corporation of India LTD Vs. ACIT reported in [2009] 30 SOT 284 [Del], it was argued that the assessee is entitled to deprecation @ 60% on the printer.

However, the ld. CIT(A) was aslo not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He held that the decision relied on by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the present case. According to him, the volume, weight and dimensions of the so called printer are such that it cannot be treated as a ‘computer peripheral’ by any stretch of imagination. According to him, it would be an absurdity if a Rs. 50 lakhs machine is treated as a ‘computer peripheral’ while the computer itself is costing 1% of the same. It would tantamount to ‘the tail wagging the dog, instead of ‘the dog wagging the tail’. Accordingly, he held that the A.O has rightly considered the printer under the head ‘plant and machinery’ and has allowed deprecation @ 15% as against 60% claimed by the assessee. He accordingly dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue.

Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly objected to the order of the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the A.O did not allow higher rate of depreciation on the ground that the machine was not a normal printer but a heavy duty printer which can print on Media mainly Flex, PVC Vinyle, one way vision, mesh etc. and size of the printer was very big weighing about 1200 Kg and that the assessee was not in the business of printing and was doing business of trading and the machine was used for demonstration purposes. According to the ld. CIT(A), the volume, weight and dimension of the printer is such that it cannot be treated as a computer peripheral by any stretch of imagination. According to him, the cost of the printer is about 50 lakhs whereas the cost of the computer is negligible and therefore, the same cannot be eligible for profit rate of depreciation @ 60%.

Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. BSES Yamuna powers Ltd reported at [2013] 358 ITR 0047 [Del], he submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said decision has held that computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without computer as they are part of computer system and, therefore, they are entitled to depreciation at higher rate of 60%.

Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation reported in [2001] 247 ITR 0268, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee’s generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon.

Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. City Corp Maruti Finance Ltd vide and 1714/2010 order dated 29.11.2010, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that computer accessories and peripherals like printer are eligible for depreciation @ 60%.

Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cannaught Plaza Restaurant Pvt. Ltd Vs. DIT in order dated 01.09.2014, he submitted that the Tribunal held that Point of Sales [POS] are eligible for depreciation @ 60%.

Referring to the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Expeditors International [India] P. Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT reported at [2008] 118 TTJ 0652 he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that peripherals such as printers, scanners, NT server etc form integral part of the computer and the same, therefore, are eligible for deprecation @ 60%. He accordingly submitted that since the very nomenclature of the machine is printer, therefore, merely because the cost of the printer is more than that of the computer and since the printer cannot work without the command from the computer, therefore, the printer is eligible for higher rate of deprecation @ 60%. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue be set aside and the ground raised by the assessee should be allowed.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that there is no head called ‘printer’. Therefore, it is not understandable as to on which head it is going to fall. He submitted that the A.O is fully justified in holding that it is not a computer peripheral and only a plant and is eligible for depreciation @ 15% and not 60% as claimed by the assessee.

We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the A.O and the ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited by both the sides. We find the assessee, in the instant case, has purchased an Inkjet Printer from M/s Caldron Graphics for a cost of Rs. 50,44,000/- and claimed depreciation @ 60% which is the rate applicable for computers and printers. We find the A.O rejected the claim of higher rate of depreciation @ 60% on the ground that the machine purchased by the assessee was not a normal printer but a heavy duty printer which can print Media mainly Flex, PVC Vinyle, one way vision etc. The volume, weight and dimension of the printer was very high and therefore, it cannot be called a computer peripheral. Further, the assessee was not in the business of printing but was doing business of trading and this machine was used for demonstration purposes. He, therefore, treated this printer as normal machine eligible for depreciation @ 60%, which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has purchased a printer which has been used by the assessee for the purposes of its business. Merely because the cost of the printer is very high as compared to that of a computer, therefore, higher rate of depreciation cannot be denied on that ground. We find merit in the above arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that that the printer has been used by the assessee for the purposes of its business. It is also admitted fact that the printer cannot function without the command from the computer. Therefore, merely because the cost of the printer is abnormally high, the same, in our opinion, cannot be ground to deny higher rate of deprecation @ 60%.

We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. BSES Yamuna powers Ltd [supra], while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal allowing higher rate of deprecation @ 60% on computer accessories and peripherals has observed as under:

We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. City Corp Maruti Finance Ltd [supra] has observed as under:

Various other decisions relied on by the assessee also support the case of the assessee that the printer is eligible for higher rate of deprecation @ 60%. Since in the instant case the printer is used by the assessee for the purposes of its business and cannot function without a computer, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this printer is eligible for higher rate of deprecation @ 60%. Ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed.

The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under:

After hearing both the sides, we find the above ground raised by the assessee is identical to the ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the assessee in . We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the assessee has been allowed. Following the same reasoning the ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is also allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed.