9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng grounds of appeal:- "1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)-17 erred in confirming the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 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 and also to the CIT(Appeals). 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinery was not the business of the assessee; (ii). that as no rental was charged by the assessee, therefore, its case could not be compared with a case of operating lease; and (iii) that the diagnostic machines were being used for the business of the third parties, thus being of the view that as the assessee had failed to satisfy the requisite condition contemplated under Sec. 32(1) of the Act as regards user of the machinery for the purpose of its business, therefore, disallowed depreciation of Rs. 7,69,333/-claimed by the assessee on such diagnostic machines. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order of the A.O before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions raised by the assessee before him in the backdrop of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short 'D.R') did not controvert the aforesaid factual position. 6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2011-12 by following his order passed in the case of the assessee in the preceding years. We find that the orders of the CIT(A) for the said earlier years, viz. A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 on further appeal had been allowed by this Tribunal, vide its order passed in ITAs No. 6179 to 6182/Mum/2013, dated 23.11.2016, wherein it was held that the assessee was entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention drew our attention to Page 13 of the „APB‟. The Ld. A.R further taking us to Page 10 of the „APB‟, which is a schedule of the „Fixed assets‟ forming part of the „Balance sheet‟ as on 31.03.2007, marked as „Schedule 5‟, therein submitted that diagnostic machines of Rs. 52,85,721/-(supra)formed part of the additions to the „Fixed assets‟ reflected at Rs. 1,15,79,767/- under the head „Plant & Machinery‟ in the said schedule. The Ld. A.R further to support his aforesaid factual contention and remove any scope of doubt, took us to Annexure „B‟ (Additions to the „Fixed assets‟) which therein revealed that the addition of Rs. 52,85,72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PB‟ 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 observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee had not furnished any details of the additions to the plant and machinery which were installed at the customers site on reagent rental contract basis, nor adduced any evidence that the diagnostic machines installed at the customers site formed part of the „Block of assets‟ of the assessee, being absolutely contrary and in complete disregard of the material available on record, therefore cannot be sustained and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
