Connaught Plaza Resturants P. Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax

DCIT, Circle 3(1), Vs. M/s Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. 13A, Jorbagh Market, New Delhi - 110 013

(PAN AAACC 1201 E)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Date of hearing : 16.03.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2015

Appellant by : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. D.R. Respondent by: Shri Rohit Garg, CA.

ORDER

PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM:

1. This appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, is directed against the CIT(A)'s

order dated 29.08.2013. The relevant assessment year is AY 2004-05.

2. The solitary issue that is raised in revenue's appeal is whether the CIT(A) is

justified in granting depreciation on Point of Sales (POS) systems at the rate of 60%.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows.

The Assessing Officer while concluding the scrutiny assessment allowed

depreciation on Point of Sales systems at the rate of 25% as against 60% claimed ITA No.5840/Del /2013 2

by the assessee. The assessee had installed the Point of Sales machines at each of

fast food restaurant for punching orders of the customers and billing thereof. The

assessee had treated the Point of Sales systems as part of 'computer' and claimed

depreciation at 60%. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim of depreciation at

25% by the rate of depreciation treating it as 'plant and machinery'.

4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)

granted depreciation at the rate of 60% and held the Point of Sales system is akin

to computers. The CIT(A) followed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in

the case of CIT Vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. reported in ITA No.1266/2010

(Del HC). The CIT(A) has also placed reliance on his order in assessee's own

case for AY 2003-04 in Appeal No. 199/09-10.

5. The Revenue being aggrieved is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR relied on

the assessment order. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the issue in

question is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in

assessee's own case for AY 2003-04 in ITA No. 5466/Del/2013 (order dated

01.09.2014).

6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The

CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee and granted depreciation at 60% on

Point of Sales systems. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:

"6.2 Finding on Ground of Appeal No.4 to 4.1 I have considered the submissions made by the appellant and also perused the assessment order passed by the assessing officer. On perusal of the technical ITA No.5840/Del /2013 3

specification of POS filed by the appellant, it is noticed that POS terminal has a processor, minimum of 256 MB memory and also supports MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows. Further, the POS machines support data sharing through LAN (Ethernet) and also have two USB ports. That being so, I am of the opinion, that the pas terminal is akin to the computer in terms of basic features and can very well be categorized as 'Computers' .

I further find support from the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd (supra), wherein the Court considered computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and server, etc., forming an integral part of the computer system and allowed depreciation @ 60% on the same. The present case, in my view, stands on much better footing inasmuch as the POS in itself functions like a computer as against any peripheral devices. This apart, the aforesaid issue has recently been decided by me vide order dated 25.07.2013 in deciding the appeal of the appellant for the assessment year 2003-04 in Appeal No: 199/09-10. This ground of appeal is accordingly decided in favour of the appellant in the aforesaid terms and the assessing officer is directed to allow depreciation @ 60% on such POS."

7. The CIT(A)'s order for AY 2003-04 in assessee's own case was confirmed

by the Tribunal in ITA No. 5466/Del/2013 (Supra). Since the issue has been

decided by the coordinate Bench's order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case

and facts being identical to that of the instant assessment year, we hold the order

of the CIT(A) is correct in granting depreciation on POS at 60% and no

interference is called for.

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 18th March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.C. MEENA) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 18th March, 2015. Aks/- ITA No.5840/Del /2013 4

Copy forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi