The ACIT, Circle-5(1)., Visakhapatnam v. M/s Chodavaram CoOp Sugars Ltd,, Chodavaram

ITA 160/VIZ/2008 | 1994-1995
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16025314 RSA 2008
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 160/VIZ/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-5(1)., Visakhapatnam
Respondent M/s Chodavaram CoOp Sugars Ltd,, Chodavaram
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2010
Assessment Year 1994-1995
Appeal Filed On 29-05-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.160/VIZAG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994-95 ACIT CIRCLE-5(1) VISAKHAPATNAM CHODAVARAM CO-OP SUGARS LTD GOVADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.C-602 APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND WHICH IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HIS ORDER BY STATING THAT D URING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BILLS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE O F PLANT & MACHINERY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS LATER CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE I.E. @ 100%. IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION @ 100% IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED PLANT & MACHINERY (I.E. HERE IN RESPECT OF BOILER) WAS NOT ACCEPTED F OR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCES TO HIS SATISFACTION. BECAUSE 100% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN SPECIALIZED BOILERS AS PRESCR IBED BY THE STATUTE IN APPENDIX-I TO THE I.T. RULES UNDER PART- III (MACHINERY & PLANT) ITEM (3)(III)A AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FAIL ED TO SUBMIT ENOUGH EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE SAID MACH INERY FALLS UNDER THE SAID CATEGORY OF PLANT & MACHINERY FOR WH ICH 100% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. D.R. HAS I NVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION ON B OILER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT 100% ON THE BOI LERS WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE A.O. AND HE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES. THE REVENUE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND TH E TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A 2 DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT SOME EVIDENCE ON RECORD IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO CARRY OUT ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTS HIMSELF OR GIVE PROPER O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. IN SECOND ROUND THE CIT(A) AGAIN EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT 100% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES. 3. NOW THE REVENUE HAS AGAIN PREFERRED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE MAIN BOILERS OR THE MACHINERIES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 100%. A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED FROM THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WI TH REGARD TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE CI T(A) IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE BOILER OR THE MAIN PLANT & MACHINERY IS EL IGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT 100%. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE. HE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THE CHART OF DEPRECIATION IN WHI CH IT IS MENTIONED THAT IGNIFLUID/FLUIDIZED BED BOILERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DE PRECIATION AT 100%. BUT FROM THE LIST OF PLANT & MACHINERY OR THE BILLS IT IS NO T CLEAR WHETHER THE IMPUGNED BOILER IS IGNIFLUID/FLUIDIZED BED BOILER ELIGIBLE F OR DEPRECIATION AT 100%. WHATEVER DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE US A REFERENCE OF BOILER IS GIVEN BUT THE NATURE OF BOILER IS NOT DISCERNIBLE. WE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION OR INVESTIGATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES HAS ALSO AGREED TO PL ACE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED BOILER IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 100%. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A. O. WITH A DIRECTION TO RE- ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIA L PLACED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATION OR ENQ UIRY. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.1.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2010 3 COPY TO 1 THE ACIT CIRCLE-5(1) IIND FLOOR DIRECT TAXES B UILDING SECTOR-8 MVP COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM-17. 2 M/S. CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LTD. GOVADA (P.O.) CHODAVARAM MANDAL PIN-531 023 (A.P.) 3 THE CIT-1 VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT(A)-I VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM