DCIT, CC-XXII, Kolkata, Kolkata v. M/s. Ambari Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 164/KOL/2010 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16423514 RSA 2010
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 164/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, CC-XXII, Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent M/s. Ambari Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 14-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 11-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 11-05-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 25-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI D. K. TYAGI JM & HONBLE SRI C. D. RAO AM] I.T.A. NO.164/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -VS- M/S. AMBA RI TEA & CO. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXII KOLKATA. (NOW LONG VIEW TEA & AGRO LTD.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI P. KOLHE RESPONDENT BY : SRI B. KHANDELWAL O R D E R PER D. K. TYAGI JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) KOLKATA DATED 24.11.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-9 6 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES OF RS.6 09 010/- AS REVENUE IN NATURE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE SMALL MACHINERY PURCHASE S WHICH COSTS BELOW RS.5 000/- EACH AS EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE IN NATURE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING @ 20 % WHILE THERE IS NO SUCH RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING IN THE DEPRECIATION TABLE. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.6 09 010/- OUT OF BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES AS REVENUE IN NATURE. FACT S OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS.6 09 010/- IN ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS AND PARTICULARS OF THE EXPENSES CL AIMED. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT IN THE R EASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.3.2000 FOR AY 1994-95 THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESEES CONTE NTION THAT BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES WERE REVENUE IN NATURE AND ADMISSIBLE BUSINESS EXPE NDITURE. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT ON THE SAME ISSUE THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE FOR THE AY 1994-95. SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2000 FOR AY 1994-95 TH E AO HAS ACCEPTED THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES WERE REVEN UE IN NATURE AND ADMISSIBLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HENCE HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.6 09 010/- BY ACCEPTING THE EXPENSES AS REVENUE IN NATURE. BEFORE US THE LD. DR DID NO T CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY PRODUCING ANY COGENT MATERIAL/EVI DENCE. HENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO ACCEPTING THE SMALL MAC HINERY PURCHASES WHICH COSTS BELOW RS.5000/- EACH AS EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE IN N ATURE. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE COST OF EA CH MACHINERY ITEM IS LESS THAN RS.5 000/- DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE @ 100% ON EAC H ITEM AND THEREFORE NO AMOUNT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED OUT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO CONTENDED THAT THE LIST AND PURCHA SE BILLS FILED FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE IN LOTS AT A TIME AND THE BILL AMOUNT WAS MORE THAN RS.5000/- ON EACH OCCASION. THERE WAS NO SINGLE PU RCHASE OF ANY ITEM IN ANY BILL COSTING LESS THAN RS.5000/-. THE PURCHASES SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE TAKEN AS A WHOLE LOT AND NOT IN PIECE MEAL. THE AO THEREFORE DID NOT ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION @ 100% ON THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 01 000/- INSTEAD THE DEPRECIATION AT THE NORMAL RATE OF 25% WHICH CAME T O RS.25 275/- WAS ALLOWED. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SIMILAR DISALL OWANCE WAS ALSO MADE I AY 1994- 95. THAT ASSESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE AND IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM WAS ALLOWED. GOING BY THIS ANALOGY THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE MACHINERY PURCHASED BELOW RS.5000/- FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO AS AGAINST 25% ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. DR RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM SINCE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS ALSO MADE IN AY 1994-95. THAT ASS ESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE AND IN THE REASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS ALLOWED. ON THE SAME ANALOGY THE LD. CIT(A) HEREBY DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW 100% DEPRECIATION OF THE MACHINERY PURCHASED BELOW RS.5000/- FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. THIS FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONTROVERT THE LD. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US BY PRODUCING ANY COGENT MATERIAL/EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MA TERIAL CONTRARY TO THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING @ 20% WHILE THERE IS NO SUCH RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING IN THE DEP RECIATION TABLE. IN THIS CASE THE AO CONSIDERED THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON LABOUR QUART ERS @ 10% INSTEAD OF 20%. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD CON SIDERED THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON LABOUR QUARTERS @ 10% INSTEAD OF 20% AS ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER THE AO HAD TAKEN THIS LESSER RATE OF 10% DEPRECIATION IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 ALSO. THAT ASSESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE AND IN THE R EASSESSMENT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM WAS ALLOWED. GOING BY THIS ANALOGY THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO TAKE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION AT 20% ON LABOUR QUARTERS FOR THIS ASS ESSMENT YEAR ALSO. THE RESULTANT ADDITION MADE ON THIS SCORE IS HERE BY DELETED IN F ULL. THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BEFORE US. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL/EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISM ISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 10. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 .5.10 SD/- SD/- (C. D. RAO) (D. K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14TH MAY 2010 4 COPY TO : 1. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXII KOLKATA. 2. M/S. AMBARI TEA CO. LTD. (NOW LONG VIEW TEA & AGRO LTD. )15 COLLEGE STREET KOLKATA-12. 3. CIT(A) KOLKATA. 4. CIT KOLKATA. 5. D.R. ITAT KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR JD.(SR.P.S.) I.T.AT. KOLKATA