ICICI Bank Ltd.,ICICI Bank Towers Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. The DCIT, Range 3(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020
December, 10th 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
./I.T.A. No. 2801/Mum/2004
( [ [ / Assessment Year : 1998-99
ICICI Bank Ltd., / The DCIT, Range 3(1),
ICICI Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020
. / . / PAN/GIR No. : AAACI 1195H
( /Appellant) .. (× / Respondent)
/ Appellant by: Ms. Arati Vissanji
× /Respondent by: Shri S.D. Srivastava
/ Date of Hearing :02.12.2014
/Date of Pronouncement : 5 .12.2014
/ O R D E R
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A)-XII, Mumbai dt.3.2.2004 pertaining to A.Y.1998-99.
2. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in
confirming the disallowance of depreciation on leased assets by treating
2 ITA No. 2801/M/04
the entire leased transactions as finance transactions following the order
of his predecessor in the earlier assessment years.
3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing
officer noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.
8,22,49,860/- on the assets leased to various lessees. The AO further
observed that the assessee has acquired 12 Wind Mills from M/s.
Renewable Energyy Systems Ltd., Hyderabad for Rs. 9.60 crores and
gave themn back on lease to the supplier on which the assessee has
claimed 100% depreciation. Since the assessee has acquired on the last
day of the year, 50% of the depreciation was claimed at Rs. 4.80 crores.
The remaining depreciation of Rs. 3,42,49,860/- was on the assets which
were acquired in the preceding assessment years. The depreciation on the
assets acquired during the year at Rs. 4.80 crores was allowed by the
AO. However, the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.
3,42,49,860/- in respect of leased transaction entered into earlier years.
4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld.
CIT(A) but without any success.
5. Aggrieved, assessee is before us.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice the decision
of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years in
ITA Nos. 3643 & 3644/M/2001. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that in
earlier assessment years, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of
depreciation. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that during the
year under consideration, the depreciation has been claimed on the
3 ITA No. 2801/M/04
opening balance of WDV therefore there is no reason why the
depreciation should not be allowed.
7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the
orders of the authorities below.
8. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The
AO in his assessment order at page-3 & 4 has admitted that the
depreciation of Rs. 3,42,49,860/- is on assets which were acquired in the
preceding assessment year. We find that the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 3643
& 3644/M/01 for assessment years 1996-97 & 1997-98 has allowed the
claim of depreciation. Since the depreciation has been allowed for earlier
assessment years, the depreciation claimed on the WDV brought forward
during the year under consideration cannot be disallowed. We,
accordingly set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to
allow the claim of depreciation.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th Dec.2014
(VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA)
Û /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated :
.../ RJ , Sr. PS
4 ITA No. 2801/M/04
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. × / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)-
4. / CIT
5. , ,
/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. [ / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
× //True Copy//
, / ITAT, Mumbai