Jitender Kumar Gupta, vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No.4342/Del/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The actual cost of equipment purchased by the assessee and leased out, for the purpose of computing depreciation, is to be determined on the same basis as adopted for the immediately preceding assessment year, the facts and circumstances of the two years being materially identical; accordingly the question of actual cost is decided by reference to the separate order passed for that year, and the assessing officer's determination is set aside and the matter remitted to him to allow depreciation on the actual cost so determined.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACIT, Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar Gupta, Circle-I, 219, Railway Road, Meerut. Meerut. PAN AARPG5507B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Avocate Department By : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 30.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2015
ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by
the CIT(A) on 4.7.2007 in relation to the assessment year 2002-03.
2. It is a recalled matter qua the issue assailing the view taken by the
ld. CIT(A) in directing to adopt value of the depreciated assets at
Rs.66,82,684 as against Rs.16,83,750 taken by the Assessing Officer ITA No.4342/Del/2007
(AO) and consequently allowing relief of depreciation amounting to
Rs.15,51,163 by ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act.
Earlier, the tribunal passed a combined order for the instant year as well
as the immediately preceding year u/s 254(1) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') deciding this issue in favour of
the Revenue, by overturning the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restoring
that of the AO. On an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the
Act, the tribunal vide its later order dated 3.8.2012, recalled its original
order on this limited issue. That is how, this issue has been placed before
us for consideration and decision.
3. The issue is about ascertaining the actual cost of Equipments
purchased by the assessee from M/s Baba Buildwell and given on rent to
M/s Minerva Holding and the consequential amount of depreciation.
This issue is similar to the one raised in the appeal for the immediately
preceding assessment year, i.e., 2001-02. Both the sides are in
agreement that the facts and circumstances of the appeal for the current
year are mutatis mutandis similar to those of the earlier year. In fact,
2 ITA No.4342/Del/2007
both the sides adopted the arguments made for the earlier year in relation
to the instant year. We have passed a separate order for the preceding
year determining the actual cost of such Equipments at Rs.35 lac as
against Rs.20 lac taken by the AO. The impugned order is set aside on
this score and the matter is remitted to the AO for allowing depreciation
accordingly. This ground is disposed of in the above terms.
4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2015.
Sd/- Sd/- [C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 5th May, 2015. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free