1. Both the appeals have been directed to be heard together, as would be evident from order dated 06.11.2017 passed in Tax Appeal No. 28 of 2016.

Prayer:

2. Both the appeals have been directed against the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in I.T.A. No.

308/Ran/14 and I.T.A. No. 309/Ran/14 respectively for the assessment year 2010-11 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has dismissed the case of the Revenue Authority by allowing the case of the Assessee and thus deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Factual Aspect:

3. In both the cases, assessment order for Assessment Year 2010-11 was framed on 30-03-2013 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 8,99,42,090/-. The Assessee filed return disclosing total income of Rs. 9,36,120/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and same was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The reason for selection of the case for scrutiny assessment was to examine the various aspects of the contractor business. Finally, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 8,99,42,090/-. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the Assessment Order of the AO before the CIT (A) being Appeal No. 520/Jsr./ 2012-13. The CIT(A) vide order dated 29-08-2014 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained few additions made by the Assessment Officer. The assessee as well as the

Revenue Authority challenged the Order of the CIT (A) before the learned ITAT. The assessee's appeal was registered as I.T.A. No. 308/Ran/14 and the revenue's appeal was registered as I.T.A. No. 309/Ran/14 for the A.Y. 2010-11. The learned Tribunal vide its common order dated 11-03-2016 has been pleased to allow the case of the assessee and dismissed the case of the Revenue, and deleted the entire addition made by the AO.

4. Being aggrieved with the common order dated 11.03.2016 passed in I.T.A. No. 308/Ran/14 and I.T.A. No. 309/Ran/14 respectively, the appellant has approached this Court.

5. The matter was heard by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22nd October, 2018. The Co-ordinate Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, admitted the appeal(s) for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

I. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner under Section 4)(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of payments made without deduction of tax?

II. Whether the Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in law in allowing depreciation @ 30@ in respect of trucks, trailors and excavators treating them as plant and machinery?

6. Though the issues were framed by the Court but, the parties have argued the matter on the issue that the law laid by Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [(2013) 262 CTR (All) 545] has been over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Service Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2017) 7 SCC 613] which is the basis of passing the impugned order, as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is proceeding to examine the argument so advanced on this aspect of the matter.

Submission on behalf of appellant-Revenue Authority:

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has submitted that the impugned order has been passed based upon the judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (supra) which has been held to be not a good law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Service Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra).

8. It has been submitted by referring to paragraph 19 of the said judgment, wherein it has been taken note of the fact that the High Court, after noticing the fact that since the amounts had already been paid, it straightaway concluded, without any discussio