Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-4, Kolkata v. M/S. V2 Retail Limited

OD-15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA 2 of 2017(OLD NO:GA/294/2017) In ITAT 29 of 2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATAVs.M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM ANDThe Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : January 04, 2022. Appearance:Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv.Mr. Madhu Jana, Adv.…for the appellant Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv.Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Goel, Adv. …for the respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in brevity) is directed against the orderdated 01.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A”Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 2413/Kol/2013 for theassessment year 2009-2010. Though the revenue has framed foursubstantial questions of law for consideration the revenue has pressedonly the following substantial question of law which is as follows:- i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding theadditional depreciation under Section 32(I)(iia) read withproviso (B) is allowable to the assessee despite the fact thatproviso (B) to Section 32(I)(iia) bars deduction under the saidSection to another plant and machinery installed in any officepremises or any residential accommodation includingaccommodation in the nature of a guest house.?”the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding theadditional depreciation under Section 32(I)(iia) read withproviso (B) is allowable to the assessee despite the fact thatproviso (B) to Section 32(I)(iia) bars deduction under the saidSection to another plant and machinery installed in any officepremises or any residential accommodation includingaccommodation in the nature of a guest house.?” We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/revenue and Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned Counsel for therespondent assessee. The assessing officer while completing the assessmentvide order dated 8[th] December, 2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act rejectedthe claim of the additional depreciation on the plant and machinery newlyadded by the assessee during the assessment year under consideration. Theassessee carried the matter on appeal and contended that the plant andmachinery were installed in the showroom of the assessee and, therefore,they are entitled for claim for additional depreciation and clause (B) in thefirst proviso to Section 32(I)(iia) would not stand attracted. The Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) – XII, Kolkata (CITA) by order dated 19[th] August,20123 dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee has claimed additionaldepreciation on assets installed at factory as well as on showrooms.However, as per Section 32(I)(iia) of the Act additional depreciation isavailable when plant and machinery were not installed at any office premisesor any residential accommodation including accommodation in the nature ofguest-house. Therefore, CIT(A) held that the claim for additional depreciation cannot be allowed and affirmed the view taken by the assessing officer. Theassessee carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal inparagraph 2.6 of its order held that installation of new plant and machineryin sales outlet/retail office would fall under Clause B of proviso to Section32(I)(iia) of the Act and agreed with the submission made by the revenue.Thus in our considered view the substantial question of law which has beenraised for our consideration has in fact been answered in favour of therevenue by the Tribunal and the present exercise which is sought to be donebefore us is purely academic. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that inparagraph 2.6 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal there is areference to the written down value and that aspect is what the revenue hasraised before this Court in this appeal as pointed out earlier. The legal issuewhich has been raised before us has been decided in favour of the revenueand it has been held that the assessee is not entitled for deduction as theircase would fall under Clause B of proviso to Section 32(I)(iia) of the Act.Therefore, the substantial question of law framed before us is not required tobe answered in this appeal as it has been decided in favour of the revenue bythe Tribunal themselves. So far as other direction given by the Tribunal to theassessing officer to rework the written down value on account of disallowanceof additional depreciation claimed, we are informed by the learned Counselfor the respondent/assessee that such exercise has been done by theassessing officer. In the light of the above, the appeal stands disposed of onthe ground that the substantial question of law framed for consideration hasbeen in fact decided by the Tribunal in favour of the revenue. pa/GH. Consequently, the application also stands disposed of. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)