IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.28 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax Aaykar Bhavan Patto, Panaji, Goa.Appellant. Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. L-5, Verna Electronic City, Goa 403 722. Respondent. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for Appellant. Coram : M.S. Sonak & Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, JJ. Date : 7th January, 2020. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.S. SONAK, J.) Heard Ms. Linhares for Appellant. Respondent, though served neither present, nor their Counsel is present. 2. This Appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law : Under facts and circumstances of case, whether ITAT is right in holding that obsolete stock which is not disposed off or sold is allowable as expenditure ignoring decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Heredilla Chemicals Ltd.(Bom) 255 ITR 532 ? 3. circumstances in which aforesaid substantial 2 txa28-14dt.07-01-20 question of law arises for determination, are as follows : (A) Assessee filed e-return of income on 27 th October, 2007, declaring total income of Rs.10,510/-, which was processed and assessment order was made under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act); (B) Assessee had claimed Rs.56,54,837/- as losses towards stock obsolescence. Assessing Officer, however, issued show cause notice to Assessee on issue of obsolete in respect of Laptops valued at Rs. 34,35,618/- and motherboards valued at Rs.14,01,600/-; (C) Upon considering response of Assessee, Assessing Officer held that laptops and motherboards which have long shelf life cannot be considered as having become obsolete and, accordingly, disallowed losses. (D) Assessee appealed to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and this appeal was allowed. (E) Department then appealed to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which has, by impugned Judgment and Order dated 27th September, 2013, agreed with view taken by CIT (Appeals) and consequently, dismissed Department's appeal. Hence, present Appeal on aforesaid substantial question of law. 4. Ms. Linhares, learned Counsel for Appellant has relied 3 txa28-14dt.07-01-20 upon decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Heredilla Chemicals Ltd.1 to submit that mere writing off some machinery by claiming that same has become obsolete, is not good ground for claiming any deduction for losses. She submits that for present, there was no material on record that laptops and motherboards had actually been sold by Assessee in order to make any legitimate claim for losses. She submits that inasmuch as decision in Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. (supra) of jurisdictional High Court has not been considered by ITAT, impugned Judgment and Order warrants interference. 5. We have considered contentions raised by Ms. Linhares, particularly in context of decision in Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. (supra). However, according to us, decision in Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts and, will really not apply to fact situation in present case. In present case, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by CIT(Appeals), as well as ITAT that laptops and motherboards had indeed been rendered obsolete. There are findings of fact regards Assessee consistently following particular accounting policy from year to year, which is quite consistent with provisions of Section 145A of IT Act. Upon taking cognizance of these distinguishing features, ITAT following decisions of various 1 (1997) 225 ITR 532 (BOM) 4 txa28-14dt.07-01-20 High Courts which are referred to in paragraph 6 of impugned Judgment and Order, has held in favour of Assessee. 6. There is no case made out that findings of fact recorded by CIT (Appeals) and ITAT concurrently, suffer from any perversity as such. ruling in Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. (supra) turns on its own peculiar facts. In said case, issue related to particular item of machinery i.e. PAN catalyst being rendered obsolete, was claimed merely by attempting to write off losses in its accounts in previous year and relevant to assessment year. This Court noted that even at time of hearing of Appeal, machinery had not been sold despite fact that Assessee had assured authorities to bring back sale proceeds of same for assessment as and when it was sold. It is in such situation that this Court held that Assessee cannot said to have suffered any loss in previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. Such facts, obviously, are not found in present case. ruling in Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. (supra) is, therefore, distinguishable and, consequently, inapplicable to fact situation in present case. 7. We also found that tax effect in present case is Rs.19.00 lakhs or thereabouts. Normally, Appeal was, therefore, required to be withdrawn by Appellant, taking into consideration CBDT Circular No.17/2019. However, it was pointed out that 5 txa28-14dt.07-01-20 this was case in which audit objections had been raised. Without going into issue of CBDT Circular No.17/2019, we now find that there is really no case made out to interfere with impugned Judgment and Order made by ITAT. 8. We, therefore, answer substantial question of law as framed, against Department. This appeal is consequently liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J. M.S. Sonak, J Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd