9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al issues for the first time before ITAT. A cross object ion is like an appeal. It has al l the trappings of an appeal It is filed in the form of memorandum and it is required to be disposed in same manner as an appeal. Even where the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, cross object ion may nevertheless be heard and determined. Cross object ion is nothing but an appeal, a cross appeal at that. This apart, raising of additional ground would only enable the authority concern to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. Simi lar view has been expressed in the case of ITO vs. Jasjit Singh [ 2014 (9) TMI 1166 - ITAT DELHI] . We thus do not see any impediment in entertaining the additional grounds. The relevant facts are available on Additional ground is concerned, we observe that where the AO has readjusted the quantum of depreciation in the subsequent assessment year, the assessee is within its legitimate rights to be granted depreciation in AY 2009-10 as per the figures worked by the AO himself . We do not see any perceptible reason for not admitting such claim of the assessee. We also find bonafides in the plea of the assessee for raising new claim on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,149/- as claimed in return of income as the prayer made by the assessee. 3. At the time of the hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. AR submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1806/Ahd/2017 copy whereof has been submitted before us. 4. The Ld. DR failed to controvert such contention made by the Ld. AR. Heard the parties, perused the relevant material available on record including the order passed by the Hon ble Co-ordinate Bench the relevant portion whereof is as follows:- 7. During the course of assessment on perusal of depreciation chart annexed with the Audit Report the AO noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation on goodwill @ 25% to the amount of ₹ 3,13,66,865/- W.D.V. of ₹ 12,54,67,458/-. On query the assessee explained that the assessee company was a resultant company out of the demerger of Adani Energy Ltd. The Hon ble High Court of Gujarat approved the scheme of demerger and ordered appointed date as 01.01.2007. Meaning that the scheme of demerger was effective from appointed date, therefore, depreciation on goodwill was required to be allowed from A.Y. 2007-08 instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e does not require any fresh investigation of facts and therefore urged for admission of the same in the light of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) : CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC). Elaborating further, the learned AR referred para 7 of page no.33 to the assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Act concerning AY 2012-13 and submitted that the controversy has arisen because the scheme of the demerger was sanctioned by the order of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court vide its order dated 09.12.2009 w.e.f . the appointed date of 01.01.2007 as mentioned in the draft scheme of demerger. The sanction was accorded by the Hon ble High Court in FY 2009-10 i.e. AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed depreciation on the goodwill arising on the demerger in the AY 2010-11 as the order was received in FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11, the AO however complied depreciation on goodwill generated as a result of the demerger (₹ 33.98 Crore) w.e. f . FY 2006-07 i .e. AY 2007-08 and consequently, calculated the WDV of the goodwill generated notionally after reducing the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Gujarat High Court was received. Consequently, the depreciation of ₹ 4,24,86,335/ - (being 12.5% of the value of goodwill and demerger of ₹ 33.98 Crore) was claimed in AY 2010-11. In the course of scrutiny assessment , however, the AO took a view that depreciation was allowable to the assessee on such goodwill from the date of sanction of the demerger scheme falling in AY 2007-08. The AO accordingly re-determined the gross block and WDV pertaining to depreciation of goodwill as a result the depreciation for AY 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 was artificially applied which was not claimed by the assessee at all in these years. The AO accordingly re-worked the WDV of the various FYs as tabulated above. 21.2 We are concerned with AY 2009-10 in quest ion. The AO has assumed depreciation of ₹ 5,57,63,315/ - pertaining to the aforesaid assessment year while redetermining the quantum of eligible depreciation in AYs 2010-11, 2011-12. 2012-13 2013-14. As a result of such re-determination of Assessment Year Depreciation claimed By respondent Depreciation computed by AO 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no bar to raise legal issues for the first time before ITAT. A cross object ion is like an appeal. It has al l the trappings of an appeal It is filed in the form of memorandum and it is required to be disposed in same manner as an appeal. Even where the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, cross object ion may nevertheless be heard and determined. Cross object ion is nothing but an appeal, a cross appeal at that. This apart, raising of additional ground would only enable the authority concern to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. Simi lar view has been expressed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of ITO vs. Jasjit Singh (Del) in cross object ion Nos. 138 to 142/Del /2014 interim order dated 23.09.2014. We thus do not see any impediment in entertaining the additional grounds. The relevant facts are available on 21.6 In so far as the merits of the claim made in additional ground is concerned, we observe that where the AO has readjusted the quantum of depreciation in the subsequent assessment year, the assessee is within its legitimate rights to be granted depreciation in AY 2009-10 as per the figures worked by the AO himself . We do not see any percept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
