9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-compete territory rights. 2. In this case, the assessee had challenged the rejection of rectification application u/s. 154 for allowing depreciation on non compete territory rights consequent to appellate orders including order of Gujarat High Court. The A.O. dealt with this issue in the order u/s.154 passed on 16/9/2015 and observation of the A.O. were as under:- "Vide application dated 22/08/2015 bearing ASK No.278240815008029, assesee had requested that in appeal effect for CIT(A)'s order dated 10/10/2006 the issue of depreciation of Rs. 86,13,281/- had not been given effect to. Further, no appeal was filed on this issue of depreciation before Hon'ble IT AT. Therefore, it according to assessee assumes finality and depreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision only to the extent of avoiding reopening of case u/s 147 and making an addition on this ground. But, for all the subsequent years the addition as made vide the original assessment order u/s 143(3), which is not in contravention of the court's decision. 4. In view of the above, the claim of allowance of depreciation is not expressly allowed by the decision of the Gujarat High Court and hereby denied. Thus, assessee's application for rectification stands resolved and hereby disposed off." 3. And against the said order, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. We have gone through the relevant record in the impugned order. In this case, ITAT has dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had never been decided or examined on merits. 5. In support of its contention, the ld. A.R. cited an order of Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 574 & 575/Ahd/2013 in assessee's own case titled as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rasna Private Limited for Assessment Year 2005-06 & 2006-07 and decided the appeal with following observation: 10. Having noted that in all the preceding assessment years, learned CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance of depreciation on non-compete territory rights subject to the rider that "however, consequential effect would be given on the issue, if required, as per the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court", having noted that no consequential effect is required to be given to the relief so granted to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and contrary to the decision of the coordinate bench in the immediately preceding assessment year. However, as we have reached this decision on somewhat peculiar facts of this case, in which an inaction of the revenue authorities has prejudiced their interests more than anything else, present decision cannot be an authority on the broad legal issues involved and must remain confined to the facts of this case. In view of these discussions, subject to the observations made above, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 11. In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 (i.e. 575/Ahd/2013) is also dismissed. To sum up, both the appeals a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
