Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
H.K. Finchem Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 May, 2010
1 ITA.No.2435/Ahd/2009
Assessment Year 2006-07
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A " BENCH,AHMEDABAD.
(BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA)
I.T.A. No. 2435/AHD/2010
(Assessment Year: 2006 -2007 )
Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. H. K. Finchem Ltd.,
Ward 4(3), Rom No.106, 201, 2nd Floor, "Aniket"
1st Floor, Navjeevan Press Bldg., C. G. Road,
Off Ashram Road, Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad-14. Ahmedabad
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN: AAACH 5113 Q
Appellant by : Shri S.A. Bohra, JCIT
Respondent by : Shri Sanjay R. Shah.
(आदे श)/ORDER
)/ PER: SHRI A.K. GARODIA , A.M. This is a Revenue's appeal directed against the order of the Ld. C.I.T.(A)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 10-5-2010 for the assessment year 2006-07.
2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:-
"1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.17,90,687/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess claim of depreciation.
2. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the depreciation was to be allowed on the WDV after reducing the depreciation for earlier years.
3. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas it is submitted by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee that this issue 2 ITA.No.2435/Ahd/2009 Assessment Year 2006-07 is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) had decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following Tribunal order and hence appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed.
4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that it has been noticed by the A.O. that assessee had not claimed any depreciation for the Financial Year ending 31-3-2000 and 31-3-2001 i.e. for Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02. It is also noted by the A.O. that the depreciation for the Financial Year ended 31-3-2002 i.e. A.Y. 2002-03 was claimed on the basis of WDV of the assets as on 1-4-1999.It is further noted by the A.O. that in Assessment Year 2002-03, WDV of the assets as on 1-4-2001 was re-computed after reducing the allowable depreciation for Assessment Year 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 and on the WDV so arrived, depreciation was allowed in Assessment Year 2002-03. It is also noted by the A.O. that the WDV of the assets as on 31-3-2002 was re-computed and thereafter the depreciation was allowed to the assessee in subsequent years on the basis of WDV calculated on 1-4-2001 which was re-computed by reducing the allowable depreciation for the Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2001-02. On this basis the A.O. reduced the depreciation allowable to the assessee in the present year also by an amount of Rs. 17,90,687/-. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who has decided this issue in favour of the assessee on the basis of Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2002-
03 and the order of the Ld. CIT (A) for Assessment Year 2005-06. It is noted by Ld. C.I.T. (A) in paragraph 3.3 of his order that the Tribunal has allowed assessee's claim for depreciation in Assessment Year 2002-03 as per the claim of the assessee in that year. The Ld. A.R. of 3 ITA.No.2435/Ahd/2009 Assessment Year 2006-07 the assessee submitted before us a copy of the Tribunal order in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.2806/AHD/2006 dated 6-3-2009 and also for Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2005-06 in ITA. No.2557. 2487 and 2559/AHD/2009 and CO No.212 & 214/AHD/2009 dated 29-4-2011.It was held by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2002-03 that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the full amount of depreciation of Rs.2,86,85,879/- as has been claimed by the assessee. Hence, it is an admitted position that as per the Tribunal order, in assessee's own case in Assessment Year 2002-03, the action of the A.O. of reducing the WDV as on 1-4- 2001 and also on 31-3-2002 by way of reducing the depreciation in respect of assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 was not approved by the Tribunal. Hence, in the present year also, the assessee has to be allowed depreciation on the basis of such WDV as on 1-4-2005 which is without reducing the depreciation in respect of Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2001-02 for which no depreciation was claimed and allowed. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on the date of hearing i.e. 6-5-2011.
Sd/- Sd/-s
(D.K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
Ahmedabad.
Dated: 6 - 5- 2011.
4 ITA.No.2435/Ahd/2009
Assessment Year 2006-07
S.A.Patki.
Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT (Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad.
4. The CIT concerned.
5. The DR.,ITAT, Ahmedabad.
6. Guard File.
By ORDER
Deputy/Asstt.Registrar
ITAT,Ahmedabad.
1.Date of dictation - -2011
2.Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating / / 2011 Member................Other Member................
3.Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S - -2011.
4.Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement - -2011
5.Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S - -2011
6.Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk - -2011.
7.Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.............
8.The date on which the file goes to the Asstt. Registrar for signature on the order........................
9.Date of Despatch of the Order.................