Tribunal upholds assessment reopening, allows depreciation on bridges, directs 10% depreciation on roads.

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee and Revenue's appeals regarding the reopening of assessment and depreciation claim on bridges for the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment and disallowance of depreciation on bridges, citing previous decisions. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at 10% on roads and bridges based on past decisions, concluding that the assessee was entitled to such depreciation. The appeals were dismissed due to lack of new evidence and consistency with previous tribunal decisions.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order regarding reopening of assessment and depreciation claim on bridges for assessment year 2002-03.

Reopening of Assessment:
The assessee, a construction company, filed a return of income for the assessment year admitting loss and book profit under section 115JB. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer under section 147 disallowing the claim of depreciation on bridges. The ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment, citing the decision in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind during the initial processing under section 143(1) and upheld the disallowance of depreciation.

Depreciation on Bridges:
Regarding the claim of depreciation on bridges, the ld. CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at 10% on roads and bridges based on previous decisions. The Tribunal noted that the issue was previously considered in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04, where it was held that the company is entitled to depreciation at 10% on roads, similar to buildings, not at the rates applicable to plant and machinery. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against allowing depreciation on project assets at the rate of 10%, stating that the assessee is entitled to such depreciation based on previous Tribunal decisions.

Judicial Precedents and Conclusion:
The ld. Counsel for the assessee cited various case laws supporting the classification of certain structures as plant for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal found that the issue was already considered in the assessee's previous case and dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and Revenue, as the matter was covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had appealed to the High Court, but without any new orders, the previous decision was upheld.

In conclusion, the appeals filed by both the assessee and Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal based on previous decisions and lack of new evidence to warrant a different outcome.

---