ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. VISION TEXTILES, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 516/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 September 2017AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that the issue could not be decided for AY 2012-13 until the assessment for AY 2011-12 was finalized. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, and the assessee filed a cross-objection. Both parties agreed that the cost of a windmill for AY 2011-12 needed to be ascertained, as that assessment was pending.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the ascertainment of the cost of a windmill for depreciation purposes, which was dependent on the finalization of the assessment for the preceding year.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Hearing: 28.08.2017Pronounced: 06.09.2017

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.516/Mds/2017
C.O. No.49/Mds/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Coimbatore, dated 31.10.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has filed cross-objection against the very same order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we heard both the appeal and the cross-objection together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

There was a delay of 24 days in filing this appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and the Ld. representative. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

When the appeal is taken up for hearing, both Shri Avijit Rakshit, the Ld. Departmental Representative and Sh. T.

Banusekar, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that the cost of windmill has to be ascertained for the assessment year 2011-12. Assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 was reopened and it is pending before the Assessing Officer. Since the cost of acquisition has to be ascertained for the initial year, both the Ld. D.R. and the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that unless the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 is finalized, that issue cannot be decided for the assessment year 2012-13. On a query from the Bench, both the representatives very fairly submitted that the matter can be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer since the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 is pending before him.

4.

We have also carefully gone through the orders of both the authorities below. For the purpose of depreciation, the cost of acquisition has to be ascertained for the initial year. Since the initial year being 2011-12 , the assessment for which is pending before the Assessing Officer, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer along with assessment year 2011-12. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue raised by the Revenue and assessee are remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue afresh in the light of the material that may be provided by the assessee and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 6th September, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →