TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of 107 days) 3. By both these applications, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 107 days in re-filing the applications. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay is condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 2/2020 and ITA 3/2020 5. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. We have heard learned counsels. 6. The following substantial question of law arises for our consideration: a. Whether the Tribunal, while finding that the Assessing Officer had gone beyond the remand order dated 05.10.2015 and on that account setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2017, should have directed the Assessing Officer to act strictly in terms of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he depreciation at the rate of 80% was claimed on bus bars by the assessee on the ground that it formed an integral/inextricable part of the meter on that premise only, the high depreciation on meters at the rate of 80% was claimed. The Tribunal passed the impugned order holding, that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction while dealing with the remand, since he returned a finding that the electronic meters/energy meters were not energy saving devices and were therefore were not entitled to depreciation at the rate of 80%. So far as the issue of bus bars is concerned, he did not examine the said issue at all. 9. The submission of Ms. Malhotra is that although the issue that electronic meters/energy meters as energy saving devices are entitle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms of the remand order, attain finality one way or another. 12. We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the Revenue and remand back the matter to AO with a direction to strictly comply with the order of remand dated 05.10.2015 passed by the Tribunal which attained finality with the dismissal of ITA No. 666/2016 preferred by the appellant. The AO shall limit his consideration strictly in terms of order of remand and in particular paragraphs Nos. 12 to 12.5 of the order dated 05.10.2015, which read as follows:- "12. Considering the above submission, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has agreed with the submissions of the assessee to this extent that the meters are technologically advanced and are having features which can hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s". The specific entries under which the depreciation was claimed by the assessee during the relevant assessment year reads as under: "III. Machinery and Plant xxxxxx (8) (ix) Energy saving devices, being- A. xxxx B. Instrumentation and monitoring system (or monitoring energy flows: (a) Automatic electrical load monitoring systems; (b) Digital heat loss meters; xxxxxxxxx (e) meter's for measuring heat losses, furnace oil flow, stream flow, electric energy and power factor meters (f) Maximum demand indicator and clamp on power meters xxxxxxxxxx" 12.2 The perusal of aforesaid provisions make it clear that item III (8)(ix)(B)(e) of the depreciation schedule provides for higher rate of depreciation in respect of "meters'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he depreciation schedule for the assessment year 2006-07 and onwards specifically/separately covers feature of "Time of Day" under Item III (8)(ix)-E(i). Under the above facts and circumstances especially in view of above referred schedule read with sec. 32 of the Income-tax Act, we find that the assessee has been successfully able to demonstrate that it was very much entitled to claim depreciation on energy meters @ 80% and without appreciating the above schedule, the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the claimed depreciation on these assets on the ground that the energy meters did not facilitate in conservation of energy. The Assessing Officer had, however, pointed out that more than 60% of the meters are mechanically ad....