RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED Vs. ADDL. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are filed by the assessee and are directed against the orders of CIT(A) -Visakhapatnam dated 19.12.2011 for the A.Ys.2006 -07 and 2007 -08, dt. 30.12.2011 for the A.Y.2008 -09 and dt. 27.2.2012 for A.Y.2005 -06, in the matter of assessments under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. As most of the issues arising out of these appeals are common, they were clubbed and heard together and therefore, we dispose of these appeals by way of this common order, for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THE assessee is a public limited company, engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel products. For the assessment years viz; 2005 -06, 2006 -07, 2007 -08 and 2008 -09 assessee filed its return of income and the Assessing Officer passed orders under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income, after making certain additions/disallowances. For A.Y.2005 -06, the assessing officer reopened the assessment and made a few disallowances similar to the ones made in the other three assessment years. Aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority granted part relief to the assessee. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

(3.) GROUND No. 1 relates to disallowance of depreciation of an amount of Rs. 30,508/ - claimed on Railway Lines & sidings. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the first appellate authority and submitted that the assessee had incurred the expenditure on laying railway lines and treated the same as capital expenditure during the previous year. He submitted that the assets are wholly and exclusively utilized for the purposes of assessee's business and relied on the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT : (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). He argued that the term "owner" should be given wider interpretation and that beneficial owner of the assets is also entitled to depreciation and hence, the claim of the assessee should be allowed. Alternatively, without prejudice to above contention, he submitted that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee's business and should be allowed as deferred revenue expenditure.