9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 2012-13 and pass order accordingly. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Y.K. Kapoor, Adv. For the Department : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: By way of the present appeal the assessee is challenging the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi dated 24.09.2020 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts of the matter and law under applicable provisions and passed the order u/s 154 by reversing his own order passed in the appeal matter u/s 154, is arbitrary and applied the fact decided in judicial order being against the principles of natural justice and the provisions of IT Act, 1961 to the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts to extend an opportunity to examine any additional evidence being against the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on fact as well as in law by withdrawin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee filed the submissions. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee rejected the claim and thus made addition of Rs. 1,20,93,150/-. Aggrieved against this action of the Assessing Authority the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions vide order dated 20.01.2020 allowed the appeal of the assessee and held that the action of the Assessing Officer was not within the scope of Section 154. Thereafter the learned CIT(Appeals) vide impugned order dated 24.09.2020 rectified his order by holding that the order of learned CIT(Appeals) was not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sharp Business System v. CIT 254 CTR Delhi 233. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded the fact that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sharp Business System v. CIT (supra) has decided the issue against the assessee and the learned CIT(Appeals) following the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court has passed the impugned order. Before us learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi Cement Stockists [(1971) 81 ITR 515 (Delhi)]; - Pr. CIT v. Zydus Wellness Limited [(2017) 247 Taxman 397 (Guj.)]; - Sharp Business System v.CIT [ITA 492/2012 Del.]; - CIT v. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd. [ITA no. 452/2013- Kar.]; - Triune Energy Services Private Limtied Ors. V. DCIT [ (2016) 237 Taxman 230 (Delhi)]. 5. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the order of learned CIT(Appeals). He contended that it is well settled position of law that the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court is binding on all authorities within its territorial jurisdiction. He submitted that if the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee are accepted that will lead to judicial indiscipline and would be in disregard to the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. He submitted that learned CIT(A) is justified in rectifying the order as not following the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court tantamount to mistake apparent from the record. On this learned DR has placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of B.V.K. Seshavataram v. CIT [1974] 75 Taxman 491 (Andhra Pradesh). He, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the of M/s Ingersoll Rand International India Ltd., wherein the claim of depreciation on non-compete fees have been allowed; (iii) Further, the appellant has also contended that the same is not mistake apparent from record, as the issue involved is debatable in nature. 8. The submissions of the appellant has been considered. However, in view of judicial enunciation as enumerated hereinabove, it is held as the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court has not been followed the same is treated as mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, the AO is directed to modify the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 20.01.2020 decided vide appeal No. 10126/18- 19. The decision regarding treating the non-compete fees as a capital asset was correct. But, allowing claim of depreciation thereon, was not in consonance with the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sharp Business System vs. CIT. 8. The assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
