PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI v. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1295/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 129519914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACP6287B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1295/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 22-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 07-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 07-02-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 17-02-2010
Judgment Text
PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI C CC C BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH AM RAJENDRA SINGH AM RAJENDRA SINGH AM RAJENDRA SINGH AM & & & & SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JM VIJAY PAL RAO JM VIJAY PAL RAO JM VIJAY PAL RAO JM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 1295/MUM/2010 1295/MUM/2010 1295/MUM/2010 1295/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07 0707 07 ) )) ) PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD B-45 MAHASHREE COMPOUND NEW LINKING ROAD ANDHERI(W) MUMBAI VS THE ADDL. COMMR OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT ) )) ) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. AAACP6287B AAACP6287B AAACP6287B AAACP6287B ASSESSEE BY SHRI NITESH JOSHI REVENUE BY SH P K B MENON DT.OF HEARING 9 TH FEB 2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 ND FEB 2012 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO JM JMJM JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 10.11.2009 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: 1 THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCLAIMED DEDUCTION BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1) OF THE A CT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE ON WHICH DEP RECIATION WAS TO BE ALLOWED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD HAV E BEEN HIGHER TO THAT EXTENT. 2 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4 93 707/- TOWARDS INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND RS. 4 56 641/- TOW ARDS ADMINISTRATIVE COST AGGREGATING TO RS. 9 50 348/- U/S 14A OF THE A CT. 3 GROUND NO.1 IS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF DEPRECIAT ION. 4 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THIS PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD 2 ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THEREAFTER THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 & 05-06. FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.1933/MUM/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.5.2011 THE TR IBUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 3. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL MR. NITESH S. JOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MR. S.S. RANA AND ON PERUSAL OF TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE FIN D THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS MUTATIS MUTANDIS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1 957/MUM./2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER DATED 30TH JUNE 2009 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD.- IT IS OBSE RVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A. Y. 2003-04 IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND WHILE DISPOSIN G OF THE SAME THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE SAID ISSUE IN PARA-2 O F ITS ORDER DATED 27.7.2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.2757/MUM./2006 AS UNDE R:- DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED DEPRECIATION AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THRUST OF ANY DEPRECIATION BUT ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE FINAL OR DERS OF THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY IMPLEMEN TED. THE ASSESSEE DESIRES THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIFIC DIRECTI ON TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS BEHALF SO FAR AS NOT TO D ISTURB THE FINALITY OF THE ORDERS OF THE EARLIER YEARS. THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR SHALL BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS WHICH HAVE ALREADY REACHED THE FINALITY. IN OTHER WORDS THE DEPRECIAT ION ACTUALLY CLAIMED OR DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED ONLY SHALL BE TAK EN INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE ARRIVING THE WRITTEN DOWN VALU E OF THE ASSETS IN QUESTION. 3. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AND ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERE ARE ADMITTEDLY SIMILA RLY TO A. Y. 2003- 04 WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE AFORESAID ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL FOR A. Y. 2003-04 AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMP UTE THE DEPRECIATION AS PER THE SIMILAR DIRECTION AS HAS B EEN GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A. Y. 2003-04. PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD 3 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THIS GROUND IS THUS ALLOWED IN PART I.E. TO THE EXTENT OF DELETING THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 8. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.5.2011 5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND T O MAINTAIN THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE DEPRECIATION AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVE N EARLIER. 6 GROUND NO.2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE APPLIED RULE 8D WHEREAS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF G ODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN 328 ITR 81 RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFOR E WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE S AME IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ (SUPRA). 8 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF FEB 2012 SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD / SD / SD /- -- - ( (( ( RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 22 ND FEB 2012 RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR ITAT MUMBAI