2018 (11) TMI 382 - AT - Income Tax

Eligibility for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on plant and machineries relating to Seed Division - Held that - If we examine the facts of the instant case in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Ltd. 2000 (2) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , an irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that the pre-processed seeds procured by the assessee are quite different in its usage and marketability qua the final product. The various stages of processing undertaken by the assessee, which were canvassed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer also, have not been disputed by the Revenue at any stage. Thus,the instant activity of the assessee is held to be an activity of manufacturing; thus, assessee is eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on its plant and machineries relating to Seed Division. - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148
2. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation under section 32(iia) of the Income-tax Act

Analysis:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148:
The appeal challenged the notice issued under section 148, contending it was based on an audit objection or a change in opinion by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue in detail as the primary dispute revolved around the denial of the claim for additional depreciation.

2. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation under section 32(iia) of the Income-tax Act:
The core issue in the appeal was the denial of the assessee's claim for additional depreciation on plant and machinery under section 32(iia) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the grounds that the assessee was not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. The assessee, a company involved in the production, processing, and marketing of seeds and field crops, claimed additional depreciation for its plant and machinery related to the Seed Division.

The Tribunal noted that section 32(iia) allows an assessee engaged in manufacturing or production to claim additional depreciation. The assessee detailed its seed processing activities to demonstrate its eligibility for the additional depreciation. The Tribunal highlighted the various stages involved in seed processing, including testing, segregation, treatment, and packaging, which transformed raw seeds into a marketable commodity suitable only for cultivation, not consumption.

The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Bombay High Court in a similar case, where processing raw seeds into a marketable commodity was considered a manufacturing activity. The High Court emphasized that the processed seeds became a different commodity, unfit for human or animal consumption, after undergoing various processing stages. Drawing parallels, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities qualified as manufacturing, making it eligible for additional depreciation under section 32(iia).

In light of the Bombay High Court's judgment and the undisputed processing activities of the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the assessee the additional depreciation claim. As a result, the Tribunal did not delve into the validity of the notice issued under section 148, deeming it academic due to the favorable decision on the depreciation claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the manufacturing nature of the assessee's activities and granting the additional depreciation claim under section 32(iia) of the Income-tax Act.