9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant : Ms. Parvathy Ganesh, A. R. For The Respondent : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D. R. ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, dated 13.06.2014, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (for short Act ), dated 05.02.2014. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)-17 erred in confirming the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 7,69,333/- on plant and machinery belonging to the appellant company and installed at customers premises for the business of the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)-17 erred in following his order for A.Y. 2007-08 concluding that the appellant was unable to adduce any evidence to show that the machines were part and parcel of its block of assets, inspite of the fact that: i). The machines were forming part of the annexures to fixed assets annexed with the tax audit report and submitted before the Assessing Officer an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue involved in the case before him was also involved in the in the case of the assessee for the earlier years, wherein the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by him. Thus, the CIT(A) by relying on the orders passed by him in the cases of the assessee for the preceding years involving the same issue, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. That at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the ld. Authorised representative (for short A.R ) for the assessee submitted that as observed by the CIT(A), the similar issue was involved in the case of the assessee for the preceding years. The ld. A.R submitted that in the earlier years, viz. A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11, though the disallowance of depreciation on the machines was upheld by the CIT(A) and the respective appeals of the assessee were dismissed, however, on further appeal the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITAs No. 6179 to 6182/Mum/2013, dated 23.11.2016 (copy placed on record) had allowed the appeals and concluded that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the diagnostic machines installed at the customers sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r attention to Page 73 of the APB‟, which is an annexure forming part of one of the agreement executed by the assessee with a customer during the year under consideration. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R that in the backdrop of such a strategical arrangement carried out in the course of and in very interest of its business, the test of user for business purposes of such diagnostic machines so installed at the customers site, thus stood satisfied beyond any scope of doubt. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and perused the material placed before us, andare persuaded to be in agreement with the contention of the Ld. A.R that the installation of the diagnostic machines owned by the assessee at the customers site, subject to the condition that the purchase of the reagents shall be carried out exclusively from the assessee, can safely and inescapably be held to be the business of the assessee, and the observations to the contrary so drawn by the lower authorities on the said issueare misconceived and had rightly been dispelled by the Ld. A.R before us. 5.3 We are further unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the observations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was thus submitted by the Ld. A.R that in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, the observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee had failed to furnish details and adduce any evidence in support of his contention that the diagnostic machines installed at the customers site were part of its Block of assets‟, were proved to be blatantly contrary to the material available on record, and the A.O had most whimsically concluded that the same were part of the Stock in trade‟ of the assessee. It was thus submitted by the Ld. A.R that as the observations of the CIT(A) were absolutely perverse and contrary to the material available on record, therefore the same thus could not be sustained as such, and were liable to be set aside. The Ld. D.R was however unable to dislodge the aforesaid contention of the assessee, which we find were well founded and supported by the relevant pages of the APB‟ to which our attention was drawn. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contention of the parties and are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts as had emerged from the material available on the record of the lower authorities, the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
