ITO, WD-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRGD INGOT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

O R D E R

PER Dr. A.L. Saini, AccountantMember:

- This caption appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10, is directed against an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata, in appeal No.108/CIT(A)-23/Wd-1(2)/14-15 dated 01.03.2016, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 21.12.2011. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:-

A.Y. 2009-10 ITO Wd-3(3) Kol. Vs. M/s Brgd Ingot Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the additional depreciation of Rs.35,72,816/- u/s 32(1)(iia) on electrical installation in the previous year as part of plant and machinery.

2. The revenue shall always crave leave for adding or altering any ground on or before the date of hearing.” 3.Brief facts apropos this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that assessee-company has debited a sum of ₹35,72,816/- as additional depreciation on account of electric installation. The assessee had claimed separately additional depreciation of ₹65,91,513/- @ 20% on plant & machinery besides electric installation. The Assessing Officer disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee on electric installation to the tune of ₹35,72,816/-. 4.On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that electric fittings and lining forms an integral part of plant and machinery.Not being satisfied with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5.At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, 1963. 6.At the outset itself, the Ld. DR for the Revenue pointed out that assessee has claimed additional depreciation on electric fittings which are not an integral part of plant and machinery and therefore the assessee is not entitled to claim of additional depreciation on expenditure on account of electric fittings and installation. The ld DR pointed out that the electric installation is revenue