w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Robotix Learning Solutions P v/s Ito Corporate Ward 5(3), Chennai

    ITA No. 2669/Chny of 2017

    Decided On, 12 September 2018

    At, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. N.R.S. GANESAN
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
    By, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

    For the Appellant: S. Sridhar, Advocate. For the Respondent: B. Sagadevan, JCIT.



Judgment Text

N.R.S. Ganesan, Judicial Member:

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai, dated 29.09.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

2. The first issue arises for consideration is depreciation claimed by the assessee on robotix kits.

3. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee purchased robotix kits to the extent of Rs. 55,70,960/- during the year under consideration and claimed depreciation @ 60% which is applicable for computers. According to the Ld. counsel, robotix kits can be operated only with the computer, therefore, it was grouped under the head "computer". The Ld. counsel further submitted that robotix kits comprise assortment of parts and an instruction manual that presents numerous ideas for creating many models, etc. and these kits can be operated only with computers. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, they are grouped under the head computer and accessories, hence, the assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 60%.

4. We heard Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. Admittedly, the assessee purchased robotix kits for the purpose of its business. Since computers are operating the robotix kits, the assessee claimed depreciation @ 60% which is eligible for computers. The question arises for consideration is whether robotix kits can be considered as computer merely because the same are operated through computer. It is common knowledge that nowadays the entire industry is automated and machineries are operated through computer. It does not mean that the entire industrial undertaking was a computer. The computer or software installed therein may be used for operating industrial machineries. In this case also, the computer or software attached is used for operation of robotix kits. Therefore, it cannot be construed as if the robotix kits itself is a computer. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the computer is totally different which comprises processing data and not the machinery which undertakes works as per the instruction given through the computer. Therefore, computer is a different one and robotix kits are entirely different machineries. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation @ 60% as claimed. Accordingly, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5. The next issue arises for consideration is addition of Rs. 14,48,466/-.

6. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee claimed depreciation for three block of assets. For the first block of asset, the depreciation was claimed at 10%, for the second block, the depreciation was claimed at 15% and for the third block, the depreciation was claimed at 60%. According to the Ld. counsel, all the bills and vouchers were produced in respect of first and second blocks. In respect of third block, according to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not submitted proper bills. Therefore, he disallowed Rs. 14,48,466/-. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee is having proper bills and vouchers. According to the Ld. counsel, this ground was not agitated before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the CIT(Appeals) had no occasion to consider the same. Since the ground was raised first time before this Tribunal, according to the Ld. counsel, the factual aspect has to be examined. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

7. On the contrary, Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the disallowance of Rs. 14,48,466/- was not challenged before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(Appeals). Since the addition was not challenged before the first appellate authority, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not justified in agitating the matter before this Tribunal.

8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 14,48,466/- on the ground that the assessee has not submitted proper bills towards purchase of assets. The Ld.counsel for the assessee now claims that bills and vouchers are readily available. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce bills would not prejudice the interests of the Revenue. Even though no ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals) in respect of the addition of Rs. 14,48,466/-, the assessee hasraised specific ground before this Tribunal. This Tribunal being the final fact finding authority, the facts need to be settled at Tribunal level. Therefore, examining the matter by the Assessing Officer on the basis of bills and vouchers that may be produc

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ed by the assessee is very essential. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue of addition of Rs. 14,48,466/- is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
O R