2018 (4) TMI 1915 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Excess depreciation claim on computer software - AO held that rate of depreciation on intangible assets is to be allowed @25% and not @ 60% - HELD THAT - CIT(A), firstly held the proceedings u/s.148 to be invalid for the reasons that there is no tangible material or information coming on record after the completion of the assessment and hence there cannot be any reason to believe for reopening the case; and secondly, AO has not disposed of the objection as per the guidelines laid down in the case of GKN Drive shafts (India) Ltd. 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT on the issue of rate of depreciation @ 60% or @ 25% he held that there is Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision, wherein it has been held that for computer peripherals like software depreciation should be allowed @ 60% - there is no legal or factual infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment u/s 147
2. Rate of depreciation on intangible software
3. Allowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia)

Issue 1: Validity of reopening assessment u/s 147:
The Revenue challenged the impugned order deleting the addition of excess depreciation made during the original assessment. The case was sought to be reopened u/s 147 based on the claim of excess depreciation on plant machinery and intangible software. The Assessing Officer believed that income had escaped assessment due to the excess depreciation claimed. The assessee objected to the reopening, arguing that all relevant facts were disclosed during the original assessment. The CIT(A) held the reopening invalid as no new tangible material emerged post-assessment, following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. The AO's failure to address objections was also noted, rendering the reopening unjustified.

Issue 2: Rate of depreciation on intangible software:
The Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation claimed on intangible software, reducing it from 60% to 25%. The assessee contended that the higher rate was justified and cited relevant judgments. The CIT(A) upheld the depreciation at 60% based on established court decisions regarding computer peripherals. The CIT(A) emphasized that the original assessment allowed the higher rate, and there was no new material to warrant a change in opinion.

Issue 3: Allowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia):
The AO disallowed additional depreciation claimed under u/s 32(1)(iia) based on the belief that the assessee was not entitled to it. The CIT(A) disagreed, noting that the assessee was considered a manufacturer under the Excise Duty Act due to the conversion of natural gas to compressed natural gas. The CIT(A) highlighted that all relevant details were disclosed during the original assessment, and the AO's decision lacked substantive reasoning. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's actions were not justified, and the assessee was eligible for the additional depreciation.

In summary, the ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The tribunal found the reopening of assessment invalid and refuted the AO's justifications for disallowing excess depreciation. The rate of depreciation on intangible software was maintained at 60%, in line with established court precedents. Additionally, the allowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) was deemed appropriate, given the assessee's status as a manufacturer under the Excise Duty Act. The tribunal's decision was based on the absence of new material warranting a change in opinion and the proper disclosure of relevant facts during the original assessment.