Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Cactus Imaging India P. Ltd on 18 November, 2014
Bench: R.Sudhakar, R.Karuppiah
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 18.11.2014 Coram The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Tax Case (Appeal) No.867 of 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .... Appellant Vs. M/s.Cactus Imaging India P. Ltd., 21, South Phase Thiru-vi.ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. .... Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.9.2011 made in I.T.A.No.547/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2002-03. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel for Income Tax ------------- J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) is filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that printers and scanners are eligible for depreciation at 60% at the rates applicable to computers even though printer and scanner could be operated independently without a computer?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing 60% depreciation instead of 25% which is allowable on plant and machinery?
2. The assessment in this case relates to the assessment year 2002-03. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 declaring nil income after set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation to the tune of Rs.1,01,61,875/-. Originally the Assessing Officer accepted the return of income and subsequently, it was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice issued, the assessee vide letter dated 29.05.2008 requested to treat the income already filed by it. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that printing machinery are to be treated as normal machinery, entitled to depreciation at 25% and hence, the excess depreciation was disallowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal following the earlier orders of the Tribunal in respect of the assessee's own case. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also following the earlier orders in respect of the assessee's own case, decided the issue in favour of the assessee, thereby dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is before this Court.
3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court.
4. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the printing machinery, namely printer and scanner, should be treated as an integral part of computer and eligible for 60% depreciation as against 25% as indicated by the Department. There is no dispute on the fact that the printer and scanner is used as an office equipment in business and that is part and parcel of the computer system as decided by the Tribunal in all the subsequent assessment years viz., 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have consistently taken the view that the printer and scanner should be treated as an integral part of the system and cannot be used without a computer and depreciation at 60% should be allowed.
5. We find that this material fact has been consistently followed by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and we R.SUDHAKAR,J.
AND R.KARUPPIAH,J.
find no material or reason to differ from the said finding of fact. Further more, we find that this issue is a pure question of fact and no question of law arises for consideration in this Tax Case (Appeal). Accordingly, this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs.
(R.S.,J) (R.K.,J) 18.11.2014 sl To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company CircleI(3), Chennai.
T.C.(A) No.867 of 2014