2021 (4) TMI 1334 - AT - Income Tax

Additional depreciation on the machinery which was installed during the year but purchased before 1.4.2005 - HELD THAT - We notice that similar issue was considered by the coordinate bench in the case of Euro Pratik Ispat Private Limited 2014 (4) TMI 397 - ITAT MUMBAI Assessee had claimed AD @10%,as the P M had worked for a period less than one year. It is a common phenomenon that in big projects, installation of machinery takes very long time because of the sheer volume of the work to be carried out. If an assessee is not successful in installing P M in one year and carries forward the installation work in subsequent year/years it cannot be denied any benefit on the ground that it had acquired the P M in earlier year. The intent of the legislature was to attract investment, so in our opinion the section can be termed as benevolent provision. In the case under consideration production started from 01.01.2006. Before that fabrication and completion of P M was going on. Treatment given by the assessee in the books of accounts to the P M was in accordance with the Accounting Standards (AS)and the AO/FAA has not denied the fact that the assessee was following AS. Therefore, in our opinion, assessee was entitled to claim AD @of 10%. Reversing the order of the FAA, we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of IDMC Ltd 2017 (2) TMI 644 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT .Therefore, respectively following the above decisions which are applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of the material date for claiming additional depreciation.
3. Application of case laws and legislative intent in determining eligibility for additional depreciation.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Additional Depreciation
The appeal was filed against the disallowance of additional depreciation amounting to INR 21,62,782 by the Assessing Officer, based on the condition that the assets should be acquired and installed after 31.03.2005. The AO granted relief of INR 37,48,136 but disallowed the rest. The main contention was whether the asset, acquired before 31.03.2003 but installed after 31.03.2005, qualified for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The AO held that while normal depreciation could be claimed, additional depreciation was not applicable.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Material Date
The debate centered on whether the material date for claiming additional depreciation is the date of installation rather than the year of acquisition. The Appellant contended that the relevance lies in the installation date, emphasizing the purpose of encouraging new investments in the manufacturing sector. The Appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument, highlighting the significance of the installation date for claiming additional depreciation benefits.

Issue 3: Application of Case Laws and Legislative Intent
The Appellant relied on case laws such as PCIT v. IDMC Ltd. and Euro Pratik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT to support their claim that the installation date is crucial for claiming additional depreciation. The Appellant argued that the legislative intent behind enhancing additional depreciation was to promote investment and increase manufacturing capacity. The Respondent, however, maintained that the lower authorities' findings were sound and distinguished the case laws cited by the Appellant.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions, noting that the machinery was purchased before 31.03.2003 but installed after 1.4.2005. Referring to the decision in Euro Pratik Ispat Private Limited, the Tribunal emphasized that the installation date, not the acquisition year, determines eligibility for additional depreciation. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Surama Tubes(P.)Ltd., the Tribunal held that the installation date is pivotal for claiming additional depreciation benefits. Following the decision in IDMC Ltd., the Tribunal favored the Appellant's argument and allowed the appeal, stating that the legislative intent was to attract investment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Appellant's grounds were upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the appeal and granting the additional depreciation claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of the installation date over the acquisition year for determining eligibility for additional depreciation benefits, in line with the legislative intent to promote investment in the manufacturing sector.