ACIT, New Delhi v. M/s. Bird Travels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 391/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 39120114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACB0074G
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 391/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. Bird Travels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 22-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-11-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 02-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 (1) NEW DELHI. VS. M/S BIRD TRAVELS PVT. LTD. E-9 CONNAUGHT HOUSE CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACB0074G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TARANDEEP SINGH & SHRI MANEESH UPREJA CAS REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR SR.DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THEY A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DA TED 24 TH OCTOBER 2008 AND 25 TH NOVEMBER 2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN B OTH THE APPEALS READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6611000/- MADE BY THE A.O. AND IN IGNO RING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF IT ACT WHICH EMPOWERS TH E A.O. TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME BY USING APPROPRIATE METHOD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRESCRIBED ME THOD. ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 2 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO A MEND MODIFY ALTER ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND (S) OF APPEA L AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1081273 MADE BY THE A.O. BY IGNORING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 14A OF IT ACT WHICH EMPOWERS THE A.O. TO DISAL LOW THE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE DEPRECI ATION @ 60% ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCESSORIES AMOUNTING TO RS.161223/- THOUGH THE IT RULES ALLOWS 60% DEPRECIATIO N ONLY ON COMPUTER AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND MODIFY ALTER ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND (S) O F APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS DISALLO WANCE MADE U/S 14A. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT FACTS REL ATING TO DISALLOWANCE FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE SAME. LEARNED CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 24 TH OCTOBER 2008 HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BASED ON T HE FINDING RECORDED BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05 WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY LEARNED CIT ( A) AT PAGE 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE SAME IS BEING REPRODUCED BELOW:- AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE A ND PERUSAL OF THE DIFFERENT JUDICIAL DECISION AS CITED AB OVE I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE. SINCE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OF SURPLUS FUND AS LONG AS 10 YEARS BACK THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TO SPEND ANY EXPENSES ON EARNING THE DIVIDEND DURING THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS CASE WAS NOT CALLE D FOR ANY THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE APPEAL ON THI S GROUND IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 3 3. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALSO LEARNED CIT (A) HAS RELIED UPON HIS FINDINGS RECORDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AN D HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS AT THE OUTSET IT WAS SUB MITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ORDER O F CIT (A) HAS RECENTLY BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4 TH NOVEMBER 2011. HE HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE SAID O RDER WHEREIN LEARNED CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 16 69 229/- MADE IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTED INCOME OF DIVIDEND OF ` 2 52 20 000/- EARNED MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF SHAREHOLDING OF ASSESSEE IN RESERVAT ION DATA MAINTENANCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. A COPY OF THE SAID DECISION WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE LEARNED DR. 5. HOWEVER THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANC E WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON SIMILAR FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF CIT ( A) RELYING UPON WHICH THE RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE RS OF CIT (A). THE FACTS ARE NOT STATED TO BE DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THEREFORE TO ADOPT CONSISTENCY IN ASSESSEES CASE WE RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOW THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION AND FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLE TENESS THE SAID ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY IS BEING REPRODUCED BELOW:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 14.3.2008 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 4 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 1669 229/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN IGNORING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14A(1) INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01 .04.62 WHICH EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME BY USING APPROP RIATE METHOD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRESCRIBED METHOD. 3. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` 2 52 20 000/- AS EXEM PT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE PROPORTIONATE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EA RNING THE EXEMPT INCOME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S. 14A. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- DURING THE SUBJECT ACCOUNTING YEAR DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED IN SCHEDULE P MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AT ` 2 52 20 000/-. PERUSAL OF ANNEXURE-I ATTACHED CLEARLY DEPICTS THAT THE ENTIRE DIVIDEND INCOME HAS ARISEN FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS SHAREHOLDING IN RESERVATION DATA MAINTENANCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. WHICH LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN 194 EQUITY SHARES AS DEPICTED IN SCHEDULE G INVESTMENTS WAS MADE ABOUT 10 YEARS BACK. OTHER SIMILAR INVESTMENTS DEPICTED UNDER LONG TERM INVESTMENT APPEAR AS 7 000 EQUITY SHARES IN TRAXON INDIA PVT. LTD. AND 10 000 EQUITY SHARES IN FIRST TRAVEL MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. WHICH WERE MADE QUITE SOME YEARS BACK. THE COMMON FACTOR IN UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT. EVER SINCE MAKING THESE LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF THESE COMPANIES NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN OR ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED IN RELATION THERETO BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. NO SUCH LONG TERM INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE SUBJECT ACCOUNTING YEAR OR IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ACCOUNTING YEAR. SCHEDULE K ADMISSION DEPICTS EXPENSES ON RENT ELECTRICITY TRAVELLING REPAIRS INSURANCE ETC. INCUR RED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNING THE INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN ANY O F THESE EXPENSES BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWING PROPORTIONATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES RELATED TO DIVIDEND INCOME U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX DOES NOT ARISE. 3.1 HOWEVER ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE AFO RESAID SUBMISSIONS. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TO MONITO R THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXEMPT INCOME EARNE D IN ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 5 THE FORM OF DIVIDEND INCOME UNDOUBTEDLY MANAGEMENT / ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES AND OTHER OFFICE OVERHEADS MU ST HAVE BEEN INCURRED TO TAKE CARE OF INCOME RECEIVED INVESTM ENT. SINCE NO DETAILS WERE FILED IN THIS REGARD ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 1 66 9229/-. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE ENTIRE DIVIDEND INCOME HAD ARISEN FROM LONG TERM INVE STMENT IN EQUITY SHARES IN COMPANY UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT AB OUT 10 YEARS BACK AND TO EARN THE DIVIDEND NO EXPENSES HA S BEEN INCURRED. THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF ACCRUAL S OF SURPLUS FUNDS. NO PARTS OF THE MANAGEMENT REMUNERATION OR POSTAGE TELEGRAM AND TELEPHONE PRINTING AND STATIONERY TRAVELLING CONVEYANCE AND INTEREST PAYMENT HAD ANY CO -RELATION WITH THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THESE EXPENSES ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORDS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE NO PART OF THE EXPENSE SHOULD BE DISALLOWED AS RELATABLE TO DIVID END INCOME. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT HE AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND HELD THAT NO ADDITION IN THI S REGARD WAS CALLED FOR AND HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. 6.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6.2 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PLACED REL IANCE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- - ITAT DELHI BENCH ORDER DATED 13.10.2010 IN THE CAS E OF MINDA INVESTMENT LTD. ITA NO. 4046/DEL/2009 REPORTE D IN 2010-TIOL-699-ITAT-DEL. - ITAT DELHI BENCH ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 IN THE CAS E OF JINDAL PHOTO LIMITED ITA NO. 4539/DEL/2010 REPORTED IN 2011-TIOL-25-ITAT-DEL. - DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 31.8.2010 IN THE CASE O F BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD. ITA NO. 1267/2010 REPORTED IN 20 10- TIOL-636-HC-DEL-IT. - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 4.11.2009 I N THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES LTD. ITA NO. 331/2009 REPOR TED IN 323 ITR 518. ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 21.10.2010 IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. ITA NO. 467 479 730 84 3 1045 AND 1324 OF 2009 AND 40 OF 2010 REPORTED IN 237 CTR 164. 6.3 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT ENTIRE INCOME HAS ARISEN FROM LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES IN COMPANY UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT ABOUT 10 YEARS BACK AND TO EARN THE DIVIDEND NO EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED. ASSESSEE C LAIMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPENT ANY EXPENSES ON EARNING THE DI VIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BELIEVED THE SUBMISSIONS. HE OPINED THAT SOME EXPENDITURE ARE INEVITABLE IN THIS REGARD AND HE HAS MADE THE PROPORTIO NATE DISALLOWANCE. WE FIND THAT THERE IS ALSO NO FINDING THAT ANY EXPENSE IS RELATABLE TO EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. IN THIS REGARD WE REFER THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4046/DEL/2009 IN THE CASE OF MINDA INVESTMENT LTD. VS. DCIT. IN THIS CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 13.10.2010 THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES LTD. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A REQUIRED FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A COULD NOT STAND. ON THE OTHER HAND THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE AFORESAID CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. HAS HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS TO IDENTIFY THE EXPENSES IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. NOW IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE MATTER CAN NOT BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY RULE 8D AS TH E SAID PROVISION CANNOT BE APPLICABLE FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SECONDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS URGED THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED TO EXEMPT INCOME. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REBUTTED THESE SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GONE INTO TO MAKE THE ADHOC ESTIMATE WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DECISION ABOVE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE REFER THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 88 ITR 192 = (2002-TIOL-574-SC-IT-LB) THAT IN THE TAXING PROVISION IF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS ARE POSSIBLE ON E FAVOURING ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED. ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 7 ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT FROM THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AS ABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.4 WE FIND THAT THE RATIO FROM THE ABOVE DECISION CAN A PPLY IN THIS CASE ALSO. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT ANY EXPENSE HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE DIVIDEND INCOME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RATIO FROM THE P UNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. 323 ITR 518 IS APPLICABLE. HENCE IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY FINDING THAT ANY EXPENSE IS DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO EARNING THE DIV IDEND INCOME IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSING OFF ICERS ACTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENTS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DEC IDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION @60% ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AGAINST THE ADMISSIBLE RATE OF 25% AND THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 10916/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD POINTED THAT AD DITION IN COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS LIKE PRINTERS S CANNERS LAN NETWORK CABLES ETC. HAS BEEN DONE. ASSESSEE H AD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 60% AS APPLICABLE TO COMPUTERS. ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED @ 25% AS APPLICABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY. 9. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT COMPUTER ACCESSORIES CANNOT FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY HENCE HE HELD THAT DEPRECIATION @ 60% S HOULD BE ALLOWED. 10. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT HO NBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. BSES YAMUNA POWE RS LTD. IN ITA NO. 1267/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.8.2010 HAS HEL D AS UNDER:- WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS SUCH AS PRINTERS SCANNERS AND SERVER ETC. FORM AN INTEGRAL PA RT OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. IN FACT THE COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTER. CONSEQUENTLY AS THEY ARE THE PART OF ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 8 THE COMPUTER SYSTEM THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 60%. 11.1 FOLLOWING THE RATIO FROM THE ABOVE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/11/2011. 6.1 THIS GROUND IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE YEARS IS DISMISSED. 7. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ANOTHER GROUND RELATES T O THE DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCESSORIES WH ICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE BY LEARNED CIT (A) AT 60% IN P LACE OF 15% ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND TO BE COVERED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL WHEREIN ITAT RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD. HAS UPHELD THE RELIEF GRANTE D TO THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED OBSE RVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUN D ALSO AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.11.20 11. SD/- SD/- [A.N. PAHUJA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 25.11.2011. DK ITA NO.3822/DEL/2008 ITA NO.391/DEL/2009 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES