9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A.Nos.1910 and 1911/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2016 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Shri S. Swaminathan, C.A. For The Department : Shri Debendra N. Kar, CIT ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the common order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) - 6, Chennai, dated 05.03.2015 relevant to the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09. The following common grounds have been raised in both the appeals of the assessee: 2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessment was reopened without jurisdiction and accordingly, the order of the Assessing Authority is bad in law. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Automated Teller Machines are substantially in the nature of computers and hence, are eligible for deduction at the rate of 60% and not at 15% as applicable to other normal plant and machinery. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Nationalized Bank and Central Public Sector Undertaking. The assessee, e-filed its return of income for the assessment years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the orders of authorities below. We find that similar issue on identical facts has been raised by the assessee for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2007-08, 2005-06, 2010-11 in I.T.A. Nos. 880/Mds/2010, 1923/Mds/2011, 1871/Mds/2012, 1395, 1396 1397/Mds/2014 and the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 30.11.2015 confirmed the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 also, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee for both the assessment years. 7. The second common ground raised by the assessee is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of excess depreciation on ATMs. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that similar issue on identical facts has been raised in assessee s own case for earlier assessment years and the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.2015 may be followed for assessment years under appeal. 8. After hearing both sides, we find that similar issue on identical facts has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessees own case for earlier asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. During the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased certain equipments in the form of LAN, WAN, ATM etc. apart from computer and other related items. It is not in dispute that LAN, WAN, ATM equipments cannot be used without the computer. In the case of DCIT Vs. Datacraft India Ltd. - (2010) 6 Taxmann.com 85 (Mum.-ITAT)(SB), the ITAT Special Bench of Mumbai has observed that router is a hardware device that routes data from a Local Area Network (LAN) to another network connection. In that case, the Special Bench has taken a view that routers and switches in the circumstances of that case are to be included in the block of computer entitled to rate of depreciation at 60%. Since the LAN, WAN, ATM etc. cannot function without a computer, they can be held to become a part and parcel of computer and as long as they are an integral part of the computer, they are classified as a computer. 7. Automated Teller Machine or Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) is the computerized telecommunication device that allows bank's customers to access the bank at places other than the normal bank without having to take the trouble to go to the bank in person and collect the cash as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee s own case, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% to ATMs subject to recomputation of WDV for each assessment year. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed subject to the above for both the assessment years. 10. No other ground has been raised by the assessee and accordingly, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed. 11. The first ground common ground raised in the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2008-09 relates to deletion of addition towards depreciation for UPS. With regard to the claim of depreciation @ 60% on UPS, the Assessing Officer has held that it cannot be treated as computers and accordingly restricted the claim of depreciation to 15%. On appeal, by following the decision in assessee s own case for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on UPS @ 60%. 12. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal for both the assessment years before the Tribunal and the ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on UPS @ 60%. The ld. DR has relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60% on UPS. However, The Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Neptune Information Solutions Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 962/Del/2006 vide order dated 21.04.2011 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. vide order dated 31.08.2010 in ITA No. 1266/2010 and also by following the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Expeditors International (India) (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 118 TTJ 652 and directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% to UPS. Therefore, we find no force in the arguments of the ld. DR. 22. Further, the Tribunal, in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 1949/Mds/2012 dated 18.06.2014, has also allowed depreciation on UPS at the rate of 60%. Accordingly, in view of the above decisions of the Coordinate Benches of Tribunal, we are of the firm view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on UPS @ 60% and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, ground raised in both the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment year 2005-06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant records. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) refers to the computation in the prescribed mariner. He has then referred Rule 6ABA of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and submitted that this issue was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. City Union Bank Lid, vide order dated 30.10.2009 in I.T.A. No.1485/Mds/2007. 4.1.2 On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative has submitted that as per the section 5 of the Income Tax Act, the income is computed for the previous year and, therefore, all deductions are to be allowed in respect to the previous year only. Each assessment year is a separate Unit. He has thus submitted that if the opening balance is included for the purpose of computation of aggregate average advances of the rural branches for computation of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia), it will de-hors the provisions of sections 4 5 of the Income Tax Act. He has further submitted that the issue in the case of City Union Bank was not on the point of calculation of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches, therefore the said decision is not applicable in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
