Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Hi-Tech Imaging Pvt. Ltd., DCIT (OSD), Mukti, Jai Hind Society, Range 8(2), Vs. 12th Road, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 055 PAN: AABCH8336A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sameer G. Dalal, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Amit Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 16 03.2016 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.06.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.
2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 17, Mumbai, ['Id. CIT (A)"] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer ('the A.O.") whereby the A.O. determine short term capital gain on sale of machinery at Rs. 35, 25, 376/- as against Rs. 10,00,000/- declared by the Appellant.
1.2 While doing so, the Id. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that: (a) the A.O. had determined the capital gain by substituting the Appellant's cost of acquisition of the machinery in a very arbitrary manner, applying an artificial method; and (b) the method adopted by the A.O. for determining the cost of acquisition was not in accordance with law and as such, not permissible.
1.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any 2 M/s. Hi-Tech Imaging Pvt. Ltd. the above grounds at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that in the return of income, the assessee had shown capital gains from sale of machinery at Rs.10 lakh. The sale consideration was shown at Rs.55 lakh from which the cost of acquisition of Rs.45 lakh was reduced and the capital gains were shown at Rs.10 lakh. On being asked to explain in this respect, the assessee submitted to the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) that it had purchased the land/building and machinery of M/s. Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd. through Debts Recovery Tribunal on ‘as is where is’ basis in auction for a sum of Rs.1.30 crores. The break up of the sales consideration towards land and machinery was made on the basis of valuation report of the approved valuer of the DRT i.e. M/s. BHIDE Associates dated 14.02.06 who valued the land and building at Rs.1.23 crores and plant & machinery at Rs.57.10 lakhs. However, since the said valuation report was of the year 2006 and whereas the sale was affected on 18.03.10, the assessee considering the reasonable decrease in the value of the machinery on account of passage of time took the cost of acquisition of the machinery at Rs.45 lakh, though the assessee actually had paid the cost of the machinery at Rs.57.10 lakhs. The AO however did not agree with the above working of the cost of acquisition of the machinery given by the assessee. He took the original cost of acquisition of the machinery by the original purchaser M/s. Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd. thereafter calculated the depreciation on the original value of the machinery up to the date and considered the cost of acquisition of the machinery as the written down value of the machinery on the date of purchase by the assessee at Rs.19.74 lakhs.
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above order of the AO. The assessee has, thus, come in appeal before us.
We find that the action of the AO in taking the written down value of the machinery by way of calculating the depreciation on the machinery at which it was originally purchased by the previous owner M/s. Deepak Machineries Pvt.
3 M/s. Hi-Tech Imaging Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. is totally wrong and against the spirits of the law. It is not a case where the assessee has taken over the business of the company. The assessee has purchased the property and a machinery in an auction. The assessee has neither continued the said business which was done by M/s. Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd. nor has ever used the machinery in question. The assessee actually paid the price of the machinery at Rs.57.10 lakhs. However, taking into consideration, the valuation of the machinery done by the approved valuer in the year 2006 and the date of actual purchase of the property in the year 2010, has estimated the value/cost of acquisition of the machinery at a decreased value of Rs.45 lakhs. The above value has been done on adhoc basis only. The Ld. A.R. has been fair enough to state that even if the cost of acquisition is estimated at any other reasonable figure, the assessee would be ready to accept it. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and above submissions of the Ld. A.R., we direct the AO to take the cost of acquisition of the machinery at Rs.42 lakhs instead of 45 lakhs. We are making it clear that we are directing so only because neither the AO nor the assessee has given any formula or scientific calculation in calculating the cost of acquisition of the machinery and since the Ld. D.R. has stressed that the cost of machinery should be estimated at somewhat less than the cost of acquisition at Rs.45 lakhs as offered by the assessee, hence taking into the respective submissions of the Ld. A.R. and Ld. D.R., the cost of acquisition of machinery is directed to be adopted at Rs.42 lakhs.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed.