Transpek Industries Limited, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(4),, Baroda

MA 75/AHD/2013 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 7520524 RSA 2013
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 75/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Transpek Industries Limited, Baroda
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(4),, Baroda
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 19-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 19-07-2013
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.75 & 76/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 135 & 716/AHD/2009) A.Y: 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. TRANSPEK INDUSTRIES LIMITED 6 TH FLOOR MARBLE ARCH RACE COURSE CIRCLE VADODARA-390 007 VS ITO WARD-4(4) VADODARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH / // / DATE OF HEARING : 05/07/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/07/2013 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPLICANT HAS MOVED THESE TWO MISC. APPLICATION S ON 8 TH OF APRIL 2013 ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATE D 26.10.2012. IN IDENTICAL MANNER FOR BOTH THE YEARS THE APPLICANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED RATHER MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT GR ANTING DEPRECIATION @ 100% ON THE ASSETS (MACHINERY PARTS) WHICH WERE LES S THAN RS.5 000/- IN VALUE. 2. LEARNED A.R. HAS PLEADED THAT THE ITEMS OF MACH INERY WHICH WERE FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL MORE THAN RS.5 000/- WERE HAV ING COMPONENTS OF MACHINERY WHICH WERE LESS THAN RS.5 000/- THEREFOR E IT WAS A WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO STATED T HAT THE CLAIM OF 100% MA NO.75 & 76/AHD/2013 (IN I TA NO.135 & 716/AHD/2009) M/S. TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 - 2 - DEPRECIATION WAS NOT MADE AS PER THE STATEMENT OF I NCOME FORMING PART OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN BUT IT WAS ONLY AS PER THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LEARNED D.R. MR. O.P. BATHEJA HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L. HE HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CL AIM WAS ONLY AS PER THE BOOKS HAD NEVER BEEN RAISED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). THIS IS A NEW FACT WHICH HAS NOW BEEN BROUGHT WHILE ARGUING MISC. APPL ICATION THUS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER WE HAVE NOT ONLY CONSI DERED THE GROUND WHICH WAS RAISED BUT ALSO CONSIDERED THE MODIFIED G ROUNDS AS ALSO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RES PECTIVELY. THEREUPON WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER:- 8.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY WRITTEN OFF THE ASSETS EACH COSTING RS.5 000/- OR LESS. THE TOTAL OF THE CLAIM WAS RS.1 58 277/-. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT SOME OF THE ASSETS/EXP ENSE WAS MORE THAT RS.5 000/-. THE AO'S ANOTHER OBJECTION WAS THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE THEN WHY IT WAS CLAIMED AS A REV ENUE EXPENDITURE. IT ALSO BEEN COMMENTED BY THE AO THAT THE CONCEPT OF ' BLOCK OF ASSETS' HAD BEEN INTRODUCED THEREFORE ALL THE CAPITAL EXPE NSES IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED BACK TO THE RESP ECTIVE BLOCK OF ASSETS. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED BEFORE ID. CIT(A) THA T THOSE ITEMS WERE SPARES AND COMPONENTS REQUIRED FOR THE REPAIR OF TH E MACHINERY. NO ITEM WAS AN INDEPENDENT ITEM SO AS TO QUALIFY AS MA CHINERY. DUE TO THIS REASON 100% DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED. ALTERNATIVELY I T WAS REQUESTED THAT A DEPRECIATION @ 25% OF RS.1 58 277/- BE DIREC TED TO BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ITEMS PURCHAS ED WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE HENCE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WAS RIGHTLY DISAL LOWED BY THE AO. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE AND DIRECTED MA NO.75 & 76/AHD/2013 (IN I TA NO.135 & 716/AHD/2009) M/S. TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 - 3 - TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON THOSE ITEMS WHICH WERE CAP ITALISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. NOW BEFORE US IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ITEMS IN Q UESTION ARE NOT AN INDEPENDENT MACHINERY BUT GENERAL EQUIPMENTS BEING PART OF THE MACHINERY VALUING LESS THAN RS.5 000/- THEREFORE A S PER THE PROVISIONS 100% CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. WE ARE NOT CON VINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SOME OF THE ITEMS AS NOTED ON PAGE NOS.77 TO 81 AND PAGE NO. 87 OF THE PAPER-BOOK HAVE VALUED MORE THAN RS.5 000/- NAMELY APC BACK-UPS RS.8 000/- WRIT ING BOARD GREEN RS.6 800/- INFO PANEL RS.6.412/- TELEPHONE INSTRU MENT RS.7 200/- ETC. RATHER WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DIRECTION OF L D.CIT( A) THAT SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF 'BLOCK OF ASSETS' ARE INTRODUCED IN THE SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION THEREFORE BEING A CAPITAL ASSET ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED ONLY FOR THE APPROPRIATE RATE OF DEPRECIATION. RATHER AFTER ANALYZING THE WORDINGS OF MODIFIED GROUND (C) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE SAID DIRE CTIONS OF THE ID.CIT(A). WE HOID ACCORDINGLY AND DISMISS THE GROU ND AS ALSO THE MODIFIED GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO THE DIRE CTIONS MADE HEREINABOVE. THUS THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.1 FURTHER WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED D.R. THAT AT THIS STAGE IT IS NOT PROPER TO PLACE ON REC ORD CERTAIN NEW FACTS WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED OR ADJUDICATED UPON BY TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSS ED AFTER DUE APPRECIATION OF FACTS AS ALSO THE LAW APPLICABLE. A CONSCIOUS DECISION WAS TAKEN THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVA NCE AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF LEARNED CIT(A). WE FIND NO FORCE IN T HIS MISC. APPLICATION. HENCE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE PRESENT M.A. IS ACCORDINGLY D ISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED /07/2013 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI SR. P.S. TRUE COPY MA NO.75 & 76/AHD/2013 (IN I TA NO.135 & 716/AHD/2009) M/S. TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 - 4 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. #$#% ' '& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' '&() / THE CIT(A)-III AHMEDABAD 5. )*' % ' ' % -$ / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. *./ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER 1 11 1/ // / ' #2 ' #2 ' #2 ' #2 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % -$ -$ -$ -$ / ITAT AHMEDABAD