9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 419 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation on JCB Machine - @ 15% or 40% - Assessee claimed depreciation on block of asset of plant and machinery @ 40%. AO allowed the claim of depreciation at the normal rate of 15%, thereby, disallowed the alleged excess claim of depreciation on JCB Machine in the reassessment order. HELD THAT - Hon ble High Court in CIT Vs Gloard 2009 (8) TMI 1156 - KERALA HIGH COURT held that JCB is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the said term as it is registered a a motor vehicle under Motor Vehicle Act and it answers the description of Motor Lorry within the meaning of the relevant entry in Income tax Rules and therefore entities for higher rate of depreciation. Thus, respectfully following the order of Hon ble Kerala High Court, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance of depreciation, disallowed by him. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147. 3. Disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on JCB machine. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The appeals were filed after the prescribed period of limitation, and the assessee sought condonation of the delay. The delay was attributed to a change in the appeal filing form, causing the appeals to be filed 11 days late. The assessee's representative explained that the delay was unintentional and due to circumstances beyond their control. The Revenue did not strongly object to condoning the delay. The Tribunal, after considering both parties' contentions, found the delay to be reasonable and unintentional. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were admitted for hearing on merit. Validity of Reopening of Assessment: The case involved the reopening of assessment under section 147 based on the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on a JCB machine. The Assessing Officer reopened the case after finding that the assessee had claimed depreciation at a higher rate than permissible. The assessee challenged the validity of the reopening before the CIT(A), who upheld the AO's action. The Tribunal observed that the AO's reasons for reopening did not indicate any new tangible material but rather a change of opinion. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to support the assessee's argument that the reopening was unjustified. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and allowed the appeal on this ground. Disallowance of Excess Depreciation: The dispute centered around the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on the JCB machine. The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess depreciation, stating that the machine was not engaged in hiring activity and thus eligible for a lower depreciation rate. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the assessee contended that the JCB machine qualified for a higher depreciation rate based on its use. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides and relevant case laws, allowed the appeal on merit. It directed the AO to delete the disallowance of depreciation, citing a precedent from the Kerala High Court. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for the relevant assessment year. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years in question, primarily on the grounds of the validity of reopening the assessment and the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on the JCB machine. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned, and the Tribunal's decision was based on detailed analysis, legal precedents, and factual considerations presented by both parties during the proceedings.
|
