Ita/2/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Wipro Finance Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THER 1 DAY OF JULY 2014| PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICEK N.KUMAR ANT) THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2008 BBRITIWE 1.The Commissioner of Income Jax. C.R.Building Queens RoadBangalore. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3)C.R.BuildingQueens Road Bangalore. _ APPKRLLANTS) (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) | ANT) M/s.Wipro Finance Ltd.Wipro CentreNo.5, Papanna StreetSt.Marks RoadBangalore. ~.. RESPONDE (By Smt.S.R.Anuradha, Adv.) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.8.200/7 PASSED IN ITANO.8/76/BANG/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002,PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLKASED TO: 1,FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW|STATED THEREIN,STATED THEREIN, 11.ALLOW THR APPBEAL AND SET ASIDK THR ORDERPASSEDBY|THREITAT,BANGALORE,IN|ITA|NO.876/BANG/2005 DATED 10.8.2007 & CONFIRM THE|ORDEROR.THEAPPBRLLATBCOMMISSIONER.CONFKFIRMINTHEORDERPASSEDBY|THEDY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND.EOUITY.PASSEDBY|THREITAT,BANGALORE,IN|ITA|NO.876/BANG/2005 DATED 10.8.2007 & CONFIRM THE|ORDEROR.THEAPPBRLLATBCOMMISSIONER.CONFKFIRMINTHEORDERPASSEDBY|THEDY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND.EOUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,|N. KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DBiGMENT Thisappeal1S|preferredbytheRevenue,challenging the order passed by the Income-Tax. Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as_ ‘the Tribunal’), upholding the order passed by theCommissioner of Income-Tax allowing the depreciation|to the extent of Rs.41,14,142/-. — 2.|Intheblockassessment|order.dated29.10.1999, the assets claimed by the assessee were.held to be not genuine. Accordingly, the depreciationrelating to such assets was disallowed. The said orderof assessment was set aside by the Tribunal by its.order dated 21.3.2003 on the short ground of the said.assessment being barred by limitation. Against thesaid order, the Revenue preferred a reference underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act before this Court.It is submitted that the said reference is allowed. The.order of the Tribunal is set aside and now the matter is.pending before the Apex Court. 3. Itis to be noticed that the said order is in block|assessment. Outside the block period, a regularassessment order was passed in respect of theassessment year 1997-98 where the assessee had.claimed depreciation in a sum of RS.24,38,559,935/-. The same was disallowed. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said order. The Tribunal by its orderdated 3.6.2004 in I.T.A.No.795/Bang/2000 upheld the.claim of depreciation for the assessment year 1997-98.Following the aforesaid judgment, for the assessment.year 2001-02, though the Assessing Authority declinedto grant the benefit of depreciation to an extent ofRs.41,14,142/-, both the First Appellate Authority andthe Tribunal have granted the benefit to the assessee. |For the assessment year 2001-02, both the AppellateAuthorities have held that assessee has substantiatedhis claim for depreciation and accordingly, they haveupheld the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome-Tax. When there is a concurrent finding of factthat the assessee has established his claim fordepreciation, we do not see any justification to interferewith the said finding of fact and hence, in our view, no-substantial question of law do arise for consideration inthis appeal. �((!&-#%.,28�1� �)00 ),�#$�-#$"#$$ -8�F#1�!+1�)%$F &#%.�1� �$+D$1)%1#),�H+ $1#!%�!'�,)F�'&)" -�#%�1�#$�)00 ),��������� ���9>� ����� ������ ����� ������