TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same held that energy meter is merely a measuring instrument and not appliances which can be classified as energy efficient and hence was not eligible for depreciation at the higher rate of 80%. AR has given plethora of decisions including the decision in case of Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it is held that orders of High Court/ Appellate Authorities are binding and revenue interest is no excuse for failure of lower authorities to follow those orders as the law provides appeal procedure for safeguards. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities shall be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. AO is duty bound to follow the directions of the Tribunal in its true spirit and should have not gone beyond what has been directed to be verified by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6222/DEL/2018, ITA No. 6223/DEL/2018, ITA No. 6224/DEL/2018, ITA No. 6225/DEL/2018, ITA No. 6226/DEL/2018, ITA No. 6227/DEL/2018, ITA No. 6228/DEL/2018 And ITA No. 6229/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2019 - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80% and there is no need for any other condition to be satisfied in terms of being energy efficient or otherwise. 4. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in holding that since Energy Meters were not eligible for higher rate of depreciation, Bus Bar Chambers were also not eligible for higher rate of depreciation for the same reason. Again this is against the clear directions given by the ITAT in it s order dated 05.10.2015 whereby the matter was set aside to the assessing officer merely to ascertain whether Bus Bar Chambers were an integral part of the Energy Meters and if so to allow depreciation at the higher rate of 80%. 3. The facts and the issues are identical. Therefore, the facts of Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 6222/Del/2018 are taken hereinabove. 4. The assessee company is engaged in business of distribution of electricity/power. The assessee company filed its original return on 30/10/2005 declaring NIL income at the computation of income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30/3/2007. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 9/10/2016 was served upon the assessee company selecting the case for scrutiny. Questionnaire was served ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt vide order dated 14.09.2016. The Assessing Officer complied with the directions of the Tribunal by passing an order dated 31/3/2017 u/s 254/143(3) whereby it has been held that an energy meter is a measuring instrument and not an appliance which can be classified as energy association based on energy consumption and hence was not eligible for depreciation at the higher rate of 80%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer sustained the additions/disallowance made by his predecessor Assessing Officer and has not given any relief to the assessee on the issue. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) and the CIT(A) also dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter-alia, a distribution licensee involved in the business of distribution and retail supply of electricity in the specified area of South and West Delhi in the NCT of Delhi. During the assessment years under consideration, addition was made to the returned income of the assessee by restricting the depreciation on energy meters to 25% / 15% as applicable to normal Plant Machinery as ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing officer proceed to sustain the disallowance made by his predecessor and has not given any relief to the assessee on the said issue. The said order of the assessing officer was affirmed by the CIT(A) against which the assessee has filed the present appeal(s). The Ld. AR submitted, that the short issue for adjudication before the ITAT, is whether the Assessing officer, traversed beyond the limited mandate/direction of the Tribunal, as affirmed by Hon ble High Court to re-adjudicate the issue afresh thereby exceeding his jurisdiction and hence the impugned order is illegal and bad in law, especially considering the fact that the assessing officer was only required to verify and allow depreciation claimed by the appellant @ 80% in respect of electronic meters/energy meters and exclude/deny claim of depreciation in respect of mechanical meters. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT (A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record including the Tribunal s directions in earlier order dated 5/10/2015. The Tribunal in its earlier order dated 05.10.2015 held as under: 12.4 the submission of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground No. 1 of the appeal preferred by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. This order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon ble Delhi High Court by the Revenue wherein the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 14.09.2016 dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and held as under: 6. As far as the first question with respect to rules of depreciation is concerned, we notice that the ITAT went by a plain reading of the rule of concerned provision i.e. Part A, under Appendix 1, Clause III (8) (ix) (B)(e) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The revenue had urged that the appropriate rate of depreciation would be 25% as against which the assessee had claimed 80% depreciation in view of the rule. 7. This court is of the opinion that having regard to the fact that ITAT went by the text of the rule itself, in the absence of any other indication within the statute with respect to its inapplicability, the impugned ruling cannot be faulted. No question of law arises on this aspect. Thus the Tribunal categorically held that depreciation at 80% was available in respect of simplicitor electricity/energy mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
