2011 (2) TMI 453 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation - The assessee is a cooperative society and claimed depreciation on the machinery which was not actually used but was kept ready for use - In the present case, the machinery in question is vapour cell, juice clarifier and fly ash arrester paid pweitier which according to the assessee had to be kept ready for use for its business expediency - If the assessee was to install such a machinery on its bonafide business consideration, mere absence of proof of actual use thereof was not enough to deny the claim for depreciation - Decided in the favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Claim for depreciation on new plant and machinery not put to use during the assessment year.
3. Consideration of evidence by the ITAT and CIT(A) regarding the readiness of plant and machinery for production.
4. Interpretation of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act regarding depreciation on machinery kept ready for use but not actively used.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The primary issue revolved around the claim for depreciation on new plant and machinery that was not utilized during the assessment year. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee, a cooperative society, stating that the machinery was kept ready for production, supported by evidence such as log-books showing regular maintenance and trial runs. The CIT(A) initially found discrepancies in the log-books but the Tribunal disagreed, considering excise records and Modvat credit entries as supporting evidence.

2. The core question was whether the machinery, although not actively used, was in a state of readiness for production, thus qualifying for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The revenue contended that without actual use, depreciation should not be allowed. However, the Tribunal upheld the claim, citing previous judgments that interpreted 'use' to include machinery kept ready for use, even if not actively utilized. The Tribunal referenced various legal precedents and the dictionary meaning of 'depreciation' to support its decision.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the machinery, including vapour cell, juice clarifier, and fly ash arrester, was essential for the business operations and increased the plant's capacity. Despite auditors' reservations, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee had the right to decide on installing necessary machinery for business purposes. The absence of proof of actual use was deemed insufficient to deny the claim for depreciation, emphasizing the business expediency and technical justification for the machinery.

4. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee. The questions of law raised by the revenue were decided against them, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the machinery, although not actively used, was eligible for depreciation as it was kept ready for production, aligning with the interpretation of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act and relevant legal precedents.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, interpretations of relevant provisions, and the reasoning behind the High Court's decision in the case.