Krishna Maruti Ltd, vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.904/Del/2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, following its own earlier order in the same assessee's case for the preceding assessment years, holds that where the facts and circumstances of an issue are mutatis mutandis identical to those already decided by the Tribunal for earlier years, the same reasoning governs the present year, and the impugned order on that issue is to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer to decide it in conformity with the earlier directions. Where the Tribunal has, in a companion order for earlier years, determined the actual cost of assets purchased from a particular party, that determined cost governs the computation of depreciation for the current year on those same assets, and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow depreciation accordingly.
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 22.12.2008 in relation to the assessment year 2003-04. ITA No.904/Del/2009
2. The first ground is against deletion of addition of Rs.25 lac in
respect of supervision and maintenance of hired assets. Both the sides
are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of this ground are
mutatis mutandis similar to those for the earlier assessment years for
which the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of AO.
Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the impugned order
on this score and send the matter to the file of AO for deciding it in
conformity with the directions given by the Tribunal in its order for the
said earlier years.
3. The only other ground which survives in this appeal is against the
deletion of addition of Rs.9,37,300/- made by the AO on account of
excess depreciation claimed by the assessee on Equipments purchased
from BBW. Here again, both the sides agree that the facts and
circumstances of this ground are similar to those for AYs 2001-02 and
2002-03 as argued by the rival parties simultaneously with the hearing of
this appeal. We have passed a separate order for the said earlier two
years determining the actual cost of the Equipments purchased from
2 ITA No.904/Del/2009
BBW at Rs.35 lac as against Rs.20.00 lac taken by the AO. The
impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the AO for
allowing depreciation accordingly.
4. In the result, the appeal is 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