Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Franklin Templeton Asset Management ... vs Dcit Rg 6(3)(1), Mumbai on 21 June, 2019
1 MA No.219/Mum/2019 Arising out of ITA No.1597/Mum/2017 M/s. Franklin Templeton Asset Management (I) Pvt.Ltd.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "एफ"
Assessment Year-2011-12 ायपीठ मुंबई म ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI ी श जीत दे , ाियक सद एवं ी मनोज कुमारअ वाल, लेखा सद के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Miscellaneous Application No.219/Mum/2019 [Arising Out of I.T.A. No. 1597/Mum/2017] ( िनधारणवष / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Franklin Templeton Asset Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Management (India) Private Ltd. Range-6-(3)(1) 12th & 13th Floor बनाम नाम/ नाम Room No.506, 5th Floor Indiabulls Finance Centre Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tower-2, Senapati bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020. Elphinstone(W), Mumbai-400 013.
ःथायीले खासं . / जीआइआरसं . /P AN/GIR No. AAAC T-1609-B (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : (ू यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal-Ld.AR ू यथ क" ओर से/Respondent by : Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak-Ld. DR सुनवाईक"तार'ख/ : 21/06/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाक"तार'ख / : 21/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदे श / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member):-
1. By way of this Miscellaneous Application for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12, our attention has been drawn to the fact that Ground No.2 of the 2 MA No.219/Mum/2019 Arising out of ITA No.1597/Mum/2017 M/s. Franklin Templeton Asset Management (I) Pvt.Ltd.
Assessment Year-2011-12 quantum appeal has not been adjudicated in Tribunal's order ITA No.1597/Mum/2017 passed on 05/09/2018. Upon perusal, we concur with the said submissions and accordingly, proceed to adjudicate the same on merits. The Ld. AR has submitted that the same is only consequential in nature and therefore, would only require certain directions from us.
2. Ground No. 2 reads as under: -
Ground No.2: Non-allowance of depreciation on certain assets 2.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not directing the learned AO to grant the eligible depreciation on certain items of revenue expenditure reclassified by the learned AO as capital expenditure pertaining to AY 2002-03, AY 2003-04 and AY 2005-06. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the learned AO to allow the differential depreciation on certain items of computer peripherals originally classified as Computers by the appellant being reclassified as plant and machinery by the learned AO being subject to lower rate of depreciation at 25%/15% for AY 2005-06 and AY 2009-10."
3.1 The Ld. AR has pleaded that while framing assessment for AYs 2002-
03, 2003-04 and 2005-06, certain revenue items were considered to be capital in nature by the department and depreciation was allowed thereupon. The said treatment was accepted by the assessee in those years. Consequently, the assessee is entitled for consequential depreciation on the Written Down Value [WDV] of the said assets in the year under consideration.
3.2 Similarly, while framing assessment for AYs 2005-06 & 2009-10, Ld. AO reclassified certain items from computer peripherals (eligible for depreciation @60%) to plant and machinery (eligible for lower depreciation @25%/15%) which was also accepted by the assessee. Accordingly, lower depreciation was allowed to the assessee in those years. Consequently, the 3 MA No.219/Mum/2019 Arising out of ITA No.1597/Mum/2017 M/s. Franklin Templeton Asset Management (I) Pvt.Ltd.
Assessment Year-2011-12 assessee is entitled to consequential depreciation on the WDV of the said assets in the year under consideration. 3.3 The Ld. DR fairly submitted that the factual matrix may be verified by Ld. AO.
4. Keeping in view the submissions, while prima-facie concurring with assessee's claim, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO to verify the factual matrix and grant consequential depreciation to the assessee as submitted before us. The assessee is directed to substantiate his stand and provide requisite information / details. Needless to add that reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the assessee.
5. Ground No.2 stand allowed for statistical purposes. The quantum appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. The miscellaneous application stand allowed in terms of our above order.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal)
ाियक सद / Judicial Member लेखा सद / Accountant Member
मुंबई Mumbai; िदनां कDated : 21/06/2019 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदे श की ितिलिप अ े िषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
2. #$थ"/ The Respondent
3. आयकरआयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. आयकरआयु / CIT- concerned
5. िवभागीय#ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड+ फाईल / Guard File 4 MA No.219/Mum/2019 Arising out of ITA No.1597/Mum/2017 M/s. Franklin Templeton Asset Management (I) Pvt.Ltd.
Assessment Year-2011-12 आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai.