PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Noida dated 25.10.2017, relating to assessment year 2014-15.

2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue relate to the issue of disallowance of depreciation on paper brand and are being taken up together. The said grounds read as under:

1. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18,23,590/- made by Assessing Officer on a/c of disallowance of depreciation on "paper brand" when brands are not covered under the provision of 32(1) and are not a depreciable assets"

2. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18,23,590/- made by Assessing Officer on a/c of disallowance of depreciation on "paper brand" by relying on the decision of Honble ITAT, New Delhi in ITA 2 No.2263/Del/2012 dated 11.05.2017 for the assessees case for A.Y. 2008-09, without adverting to the fact that each assessment year is separate as per the Income Tax act,1961"

3. Briefly stated the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of writing & printing paper. While framing assessment for the impugned assessment year, the AO disallowed depreciation claimed by the assessee of Rs. 18,23,590/-on paper brands purchased by the assessee in F.Y 2005-06 for a total consideration of Rs.6,03,52,000/-, holding that paper brand was not a depreciable asset and rather it was an appreciable asset whose value enhanced with time, following his order passed u/s 143(3) of the, for A.Y 2008-09 in the case of the assessee.

4. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who deleted the disallowance, following the decision of the I.T.A.T. in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 and assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14, wherein identical issue was found to have been decided in favour of the assessee.

5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. DR though fairly conceded that the I.T.A.T. had decided identical issue in favour of the assessee in assessment year 2008-09 and assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14 vide their orders passed in ITA No.2263/Del/2012 and in ITA Nos.1339 to 1346/Del/2012,he however relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 3

6. The Ld. counsel for assessee, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals).

7. We have heard the rival contentions. We find no merit in the present grounds raised by the Revenue. Admittedly, identical issue has been decided by the I.T.A.T. in the case of the assessee itself, in its favour. No distinguishing facts have been brought to our notice by the Ld. DR. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who has followed the order of the I.T.A.T. passed in the case of the assessee itself on identical issue while deleting the disallowance so made. Ground of appeal Nos.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed.

8. Ground Nos.3, 4 and 5 raised by the Revenue all relate to the issue of disallowance of depreciation on chemical recovery plant. The same are, therefore, being taken up together for adjudication. Ground Nos.3, 4 and 5 read as under:

3. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17,06,892/- made by Assessing Officer on a/c of disallowance of depreciation on "chemical recovery plant" when the complete plant was not put to use by the assessee during the year"

4. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,08,107/- made by Assessing Officer when during the appellate proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09 before the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi the Assessing Officer in his remand report had strongly objected to admission of additional evidences & thus the order of the Honble ITAT is against the decision of the Honble ITAT, New Delhi in the case of ITO, Ward-24(3) vs Kuldeep & against the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of 4 Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., (2012) wherein it has been held that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition without further giving an opportunity to the AO & thus the requirement of giving the AO andopportunityasperRule46A(3),was not met"

5. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17,06,892/- made by Assessing Officer on a/c of disallowance of depreciation on "chemical recovery plant" by relying on its decision in ITA No. 2263/Del/2012 dated 11.05.2017 for the assessees case for A.Y. 2008-09, without adverting to the fact that each assessment year is separate as per the Income Tax act, 1961"

9. Brief facts relevant to the issue are, during the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.2,33,55,272/- on the chemical recovery plant which had been installed at the factory premises of the assessee at Saila Khurd, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The total cost of plant was at Rs.42,53,48,679/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the issue had been dealt while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the for assessment year 2008- 09 of the assessee, wherein depreciation had been disallowed on finding that the aforesaid plant & machinery had not been put to use in the month of March, 2008 as claimed by the assessee, but had been put to use in the month of April, 2008. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessees appeal against the said order had been allowed by the CIT(Appeals). But further taking note of the fact that against the aforesaid order of the CIT(Appeals), the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Honble ITAT and therefore to keep the matter alive, depreciation claimed on chemical recovery plant was disallowed for assessment year 2008-09, for calculating Written Down Value 5 (hereinafter referred to as WDV) of the asset and accordingly the depreciation for the impugned year was worked out at Rs. 2,16,48,380/- as against Rs.2,33,55,272/- claimed by the assessee. The disallowance to the extent of excess depreciation claimed therefore of Rs. 17,06,892/- was made. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer at para 4 of his order is as under:

4. The assessee, during the year under consideration, has claimed depreciation of Rs.2,33,55,272/- on the chemical recovery plant which has been installed at the factory premises of the assessee at Saila Khurd, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The total cost of plant is at Rs.42,53,48,679/-. A detailed discussion on the above matter has been made in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2010 for A.Y. 2008-09. The AO disallowed depreciation in A.Y. 2008-09 and has concluded that the aforesaid plant & machinery was not put to use in the month of March, 2008 as claimed by the assessee but has been put to use in the month of April, 2008. Therefore, disallowance of depreciation was made in A.Y. 2008-09. The assessee filed an appeal against order u/s 143(3) and the Honble CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi vide order dated 16.02.2012 in Appeal No. 98/10-11 has deleted the disallowance of depreciation on chemical recovery plant. Against the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Honble ITAT and therefore to keep the matter alive depreciation claimed on chemical recovery plant has been disallowed in the assessment u/s 143(3)/153A for A.Y. 2008-09. As the depreciation for A.Y. 2008-09 has been disallowed and the depreciation in A.Y. 2009-10 has been allowed on the full cost of plant as the same was put to use in April, 2008. Total depreciation of Rs. 14,88,72,038/- has been allowed in A.Y. 2009-10, depreciation of Rs. 4,14,71,496/- has been allowed in A.Y. 2010-11, depreciation of Rs. 3,52,50,772/-has been allowed, in A.Y. 2011-12, depreciation of Rs.2,99,63,156/- has been allowed in A.Y. 2012-13 and depreciation of Rs.2,54,68,683/- has been allowed in A.Y. 2013-14. The WDV as on 01.04.2013 amounts to Rs.14,43,22,535/- on which depreciation allowable for the year under consideration comes to Rs.2,16,48,380/- as against depreciation of Rs.2,33,55,272/- claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the net disallowable depreciation comes to Rs.17,06,892/-. In view of the above, depreciation of Rs.17,06,982/- is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, provisions of section 271(l)(c) 6 are attracted and therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are also considered separately.

10. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance following the orders of the I.T.A.T. in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 and for assessment years 2006- 07 to 2013-14 wherein he found that identical issue of disallowance of depreciation of chemical recovery plant had been decided in favour of the assessee.

11. During the course of hearing before us, at the outset, it was pointed out that ground No.4 relating to the admission of additional evidences was not relevant to the present case since no additional evidences were filed in the present case. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue, therefore, is dismissed.

12. Vis--vis ground Nos.3 and 5, the Ld. DR admitted that the basis for making disallowance in the present case, was the disallowance of depreciation on the said asset in assessment year 2008-09 and the allowance thereof in subsequent years ,which consequently resulted in WDV as at the beginning of the impugned year being Rs.14,43,22,535/- ,entitling the assessee to depreciation thereon of Rs.2,16,48,380/- as against Rs.2,33,55,272/- claimed by the assessee. The Ld.DR fairly admitted that the disallowance of depreciation made in A.Y 2008-09 had been deleted by the I.T.A.T. in its aforestated order and the basis of disallowance made in the impugned year therefore did not survive. 7

13. Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A).

14. In view of the above, since it has been fairly admitted by the Ld. DR that the disallowance of depreciation in the chemical recovery plant does not survive, since the very basis on which it was made by the Assessing Officer was the disallowance of depreciation on the chemical recovery plant in assessment year 2008-09, resulting in reducing the claim of depreciation in the impugned year, which has been deleted by the I.T.A.T. in its order passed in assessment year 2008-09, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). Ground Nos.3 and 5 raised by the Revenue are also dismissed .

15. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 10 th May, 2018 *Rati* Copy to:

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent

3. The CIT(A)

4. The CIT

5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh 8