IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM
Assessment Year : 2002-03
ACIT, Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar Gupta,
Circle-I, 219, Railway Road,
Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Avocate
Department By : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 30.04.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2015
PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by
the CIT(A) on 4.7.2007 in relation to the assessment year 2002-03.
2. It is a recalled matter qua the issue assailing the view taken by the
ld. CIT(A) in directing to adopt value of the depreciated assets at
Rs.66,82,684 as against Rs.16,83,750 taken by the Assessing Officer
(AO) and consequently allowing relief of depreciation amounting to
Rs.15,51,163 by ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act.
Earlier, the tribunal passed a combined order for the instant year as well
as the immediately preceding year u/s 254(1) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') deciding this issue in favour of
the Revenue, by overturning the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restoring
that of the AO. On an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the
Act, the tribunal vide its later order dated 3.8.2012, recalled its original
order on this limited issue. That is how, this issue has been placed before
us for consideration and decision.
3. The issue is about ascertaining the actual cost of Equipments
purchased by the assessee from M/s Baba Buildwell and given on rent to
M/s Minerva Holding and the consequential amount of depreciation.
This issue is similar to the one raised in the appeal for the immediately
preceding assessment year, i.e., 2001-02. Both the sides are in
agreement that the facts and circumstances of the appeal for the current
year are mutatis mutandis similar to those of the earlier year. In fact,
both the sides adopted the arguments made for the earlier year in relation
to the instant year. We have passed a separate order for the preceding
year determining the actual cost of such Equipments at Rs.35 lac as
against Rs.20 lac taken by the AO. The impugned order is set aside on
this score and the matter is remitted to the AO for allowing depreciation
accordingly. This ground is disposed of in the above terms.
4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2015.
[C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 5th May, 2015.
Copy forwarded to:
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.