IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 571/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Tax, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 13A, Jor Bagh Market, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACC1201E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Date of hearing 07.01.2016 Date of pronouncement 10.02.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by Revenue is directed against order dated 21.11.2013 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, New Delhi for assessment year 2008-09, raising following grounds of appeal: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), New Delhi is hereby directed to file appeal in above mentioned case before ITAT, New Delhi on following ground of appeal. 1. Whether learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that Point of Sales (POS) systems are computers and allowing depreciation @ 60% thereon ignoring fact that every electronic item having memory and storage cannot be covered under definition of computers eligible for deduction of depreciation @60%. 2 ITA No. 571/Del/2014, AY: 2008-09 2. appellant craves leave for reserving right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during hearing of this appeal. 2. sole ground of appeal of Revenue is whether Point of Sales (POS) systems are subject to depreciation @ 60% or not. 3. At outset, learned Authorized Representative of assessee submitted that issue raised in above ground is squarely covered by decisions of coordinate bench of Tribunal in case of assessee itself for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2009-10 in ITA nos. 5466/Del/2013, 5840/Del/2013, 6441 & 6442/Del/2013. 4. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though relied on orders of Assessing Officer but could not controvert fact as issue was duly covered by decision of Tribunal in case of assessee itself. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. In assessment year 2003-04, Tribunal in ITA No. 5466/Del/2013 has decided issue against Revenue with findings, which are as under: 7. Keeping in view aforesaid finding given by learned First Appellate Authority, in which he has respectfully followed order dated 31.08.2010 of Hon ble High Court of Delhi passed in ITA No. 1266/2010 in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajdhani Powers Ltd., wherein issue in dispute has been decided in favour of assesse and against Revenue, no interference is called for in valid and reasoned order passed by Learned First Appellate Authority. Hence, we affirm order of Order of learned CIT (A) and dismiss present appeal filed by Revenue. 6. This issue came before Tribunal in assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No. 5840/Del/2013 when Tribunal following order of Tribunal in 3 ITA No. 571/Del/2014, AY: 2008-09 assessment year 2003-04 , upheld action of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in granting depreciation on POA @ 60%. In assessment year 2007-08 and 2009-10 also Tribunal has upheld order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed appeal of Revenue on issue in dispute. 7. Respectfully following finding of Tribunal in case of assessee itself, we uphold order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on issue in dispute and allow depreciation @ 60% allowed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on point of sales (POS) systems. 8. In result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. decision is pronounced in open court on 10th February, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M. GARG) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10th February, 2016. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1), New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd