9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") is bad in law as the order was passed before the expiry of time granted in notice issued after video conferencing for further submissions. It is submitted it be so held now. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding Assessing Officer's order disallowing expenditure on stores and spares amounting to Rs.53,06,209 (Rs.64,31,768 less depreciation of Rs.11,25,559) consumed during the year on the ground that such stores and spares can be used as self-contained machinery items. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.1 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch that assessee does not wish to press ground No.1, therefore, we dismiss the ground no.1 raised by the assessee as "not pressed". 4. Ground Nos.2 to 2.2 relate to disallowance of expenditure on stores and spares amounting to Rs.53,06,209/- consumed during the year on the ground that such stores and spares can be used as self-contained machinery items. 5. When this appeal was called out of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 31.10.2022, passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case, in ITA Nos.720 & 721/SRT/2018 for AYs.2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. The issue was capital expenditure versus revenue expenditure in the context of stores and spares which were discussed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ld CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by taking view that replacement of part of machinery have not enhanced the capacity of existing facility. The ld. CIT(A) also held that in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2005-06 and again in A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12, similar replacement expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure. Before us, the AR of the assessee vehemently relied on the decision of Tribunal in A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 432/Srt/2018 dated 22/08/2022, wherein this combination has passed the following order: "19. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authority. We have also seen the orders of the Tribunal and High Court in various years and recorded above. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and against the Revenue. Thus, following the principal of consistency we affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed." 11. Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessees own case for A.Y. 2012-13 and in earlier years as recorded above and by following the principle of consistency, we do not find merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue and we affirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 8. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
