9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Appeals)-18, Chennai, dated 22.11.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2020-21. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Id. Commissioner of IT (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation on ATMs at the rate of 40% by treating the ATMS as computers, without appreciating the fact that the ATMS are electronic device and therefore eligible for deprecation as applicable to plant and machinery only. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the ATMS are electronic devices guided by external computers and cannot carry out any of the functions of a computer and therefore depreciation as applicable to computers cannot be allowed for ATMs. 2.3 The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Diebold systems Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial taxes, wherein it was clearly held that ATM is neither a computer nor a part of a computer but an electronic device only. 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low. We find that an identical issue has been considered by the tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2017- 18 in ITA No. 439/Chny/2022, dated 24.08.2022, where the Tribunal by following its earlier order for assessment years 2015-16 2016-17, held that ATM machines are entitled for higher depreciation of 60% as against normal depreciation of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer. The relevant findings of the tribunal are as follows: 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2015-16 2016-17 in I.T.A. Nos. 2126 2127/Chny/2019 dated 17.03.2020, wherein, the Tribunal by following earlier decision in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2013- 14 and 2014-15 and held that the assessee is entitled for 60% depreciation on ATM machines. The relevant findings are as under: 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for assessment years 2013-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the computer. We also find that similar issue has been addressed by the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Datacraft India Ltd. [2010] 40 SOT 295 wherein the definition of 'computer' given by the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been discussed and it has been held that the computer is to perform logical, arithmetical and memory functions on data etc and it is not only the equipment which perform such functions that could be called as computer but includes all input and output devices which are connected to or related to it. The Special Bench accordingly held that routers and switches are also to be included in the block of computers entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60%. We find that the ATM machine is doing the logical, arithmetic and memory functions by manipulations of electronic magnetic or optical impulses giving debit or credit cash and thereafter dispenses the case and gives a printed receipt and hence it could be safely concluded that computer is an integral part of ATM machine and on the basis of the information processed by the computer in the ATM machine only, the mechanical functions of the dispensation of cash or deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagatram Ahuja vs CIT reported in 246 ITR 609 (SC) had observed as under:- 23. We find that Kantilal Trikamlal's case (supra) supports the view taken in N.S. Getti Chettiar's case (supra). Added to this, section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, defining 'property' carne up for consideration in Kantilal Trikamlal's case (supra). We may state here itself that the word sand expressions defined in one statute as judicially interpreted do not afford a guide to construction of the same words or expressions in another statute unless both the statutes are paramateria legislations or it is specifically so provided in one statute to give the same meaning to the words as defined in other statute. The aim and object of the two legislations, namely, the Gift-tax Act and the Estate Duty Act are not similar. It is obvious that the purpose behind introduction of Karnataka VAT Act and Income Tax Act 1961 are totally different and moreover one is a state legislation and another is a central legislation. Hence the words and expressions in one statute cannot be imported into another statute unless both the statutes are pari mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the matter of DCIT v. Global Trust Bank (ITA No. 474/D/09) wherein it has been held that ATM was a computer equipment and depreciation @ 60% was allowed. So far as the use of software is concerned, the Tribunal records a fact that the evidence of the use of the software on 31/3/2008 was produced before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal held that depreciation @ 30% on software was rightly claimed. 6) We note that the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact on all the three questions. The revenue has not been able to show that the above finding of fact is perverse. Thus, we do not see any reason to entertain question (i) , (ii) and (iii) above. 7) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6.4. We find that the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC) had held that when there are two conflicting decisions of two different high courts (non-jurisdictional) , then the construction that is favourable to the assessee is to be adopted. 6.5. Hence in the instant case, the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court supra which was rendered in the context of Income Tax Act and duly addressing the argume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... functions of a Computer in the business activity of an assessee? Is it a tool of his trade with which it carries on his business? If the answer is in affirmative, it would be a computer and moreover the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and hence, we do not find any reason to depart from the findings of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @60% as claimed by the assessee. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2126/CHNY/2019 for assessment year 2015-2016 stands allowed. 8. In this view of the matter and following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier assessment years, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at 60% on ATM machines as claimed by the assessee. 7. In this view of the matter and consistent with view taken by the coordinate bench in assessee s own case for earlier assessment year, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow higher depreciation of 40% as claimed by the assessee on ATM machine. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
