TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on identical facts and common grounds of appeal for different Assessment Years (AYs). ITA No. 1484/Mum/2012 for AY-1994-95 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding that the transactions of lease of various assets were mere financing transactions and the Appellant was therefore not entitled to depreciation allowance of ₹ 3,74,64,977/- u/s 32 of the Act. [Ground No. 1(a) to 1(e)]. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. [Ground No. 2(a) to 2(b)]. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in levy of interest u/s 220(2) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case as emanating from the record of the case are that the assessee filed Nil return of income. The assessment completed under section 143(3) of on 31.03.1997, determining the total income of assessee at ₹ 1,63,88,736/-. The assessing officer disallowed depreciation on leased assets. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the action of Assessing Officer (AO) was sustained. Further, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epreciation of leased asset for AYs 1995- 96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT vide ITA No. 6214/Mum/2003 for AY 1997-98 and ITA No. 7148/Mum/2004 for AY 1998-99 and the Tribunal passed the following order: 18.15.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that impugned assets underlying lease agreements were very much in existence, that purchase consideration of assets was discharged by the assessee through banking channels, that copies of the cheques were also produced, that the lease transactions were completed as per all legally prescribed procedures, that it was a rightful owner of leased assets that the lessees had confirmed the ownership of assets, that they had not claimed depreciation in their books of account for purchase and lease of assets, that lease rentals earned by the assessee was offered to tax and same was assets by the AO.s in the year under consideration as well as in the subsequent AY.s. Here, we would like to discuss the matter of I.C.D.S Ltd.(supra).In that case the Hon ble Apex Court has held as under: The provision on depreciation in the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espectfully following the decision of Tribunal the ground No.1 of appeal raised by assessee is allowed. 7. Ground No.2 relates to interest charge u/s 234(B) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee argued that interest u/s 234B is chargeable only up to date of regular assessment order and not up to the date of order passed in pursuant to the direction of Tribunal. It was further argued that sub-section 4 of section 234B deals only with the decrease or increase of amount on which interest is to be charged and not the period. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of his submissions relied upon the decisions of Tribunal in Freightship Consultants (P) Ltd. v. ITO (110 ITD 377) (Del), ACIT v. Sallauddin M. Kadri (ITA No. 2426/Ahd/2009) (ITAT Ahmedabad), Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, [1995] 216 ITR 759 (C) and decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Cyanamid India Ltd. v. K.N. Anantharama Ayyar (203 ITR 561) (Bom.). On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. 8. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and gone through the order of authorities below. Considering the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Freightship Consultants (P) Ltd.(su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Grounds of appeal. However, as per our considered view the solitary ground of appeal is that if the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act. 18. Brief facts leading to raising this ground of appeal are that the AO while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 12.12.2006 charge interest u/s 220(2) of the Act of ₹ 3,16,716/-. The assessee filed application u/s 154 dated 22.01.2007 for seeking the rectification of the error that interest has been erroneously charged u/s 220(2) of the Act. In the application the assessee requested that the interest should be charged till the passing of original assessment order dated 31.03.1997 (i.e. from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1997). The application of assessee was rejected by assessing officer vide order dated 15.03.2007. Aggrieved, by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 12.08.2010, the present appeal is filed before us. 19. We have heard the ld. AR of the assessee and the ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
