2022 (10) TMI 125 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - disallowance of additional depreciation - Asset used less than 180 days - CIT-A deleted the disallowance of additional depreciation made by the AO while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act. Grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected.HELD THAT - No infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation made by the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act. Grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 154 for AY 2012-13.

Analysis:
1. Factual Background:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2012-13, disputing the disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 154. The assessee had initially claimed additional depreciation which was partially allowed by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment.

2. Non-Appearance of Assessee:
Despite multiple hearing notices, the assessee did not appear, leading to the appeal being disposed of in the absence of the assessee.

3. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation:
The Assessing Officer disallowed additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 154, contending that only 50% of the additional depreciation could be claimed in the year when the assets were used for less than 180 days.

4. Judicial Interpretation:
The Ld.CIT(A) referred to various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of beneficial legislation to favor the assessee. The court held that the balance of additional depreciation could be claimed in the succeeding year.

5. Legality of Disallowance:
The Ld.CIT(A) ruled that the denial of additional depreciation by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 was unjustified. Citing legal principles, it was held that Section 154 cannot be invoked for disallowing additional depreciation, as the mistake must be apparent on the face of the record, which was not the case here.

6. Legal Rationale:
The Ld.CIT(A) highlighted that Section 32(1)(iia) is an incentive provision to encourage industrialization, and any restriction on such benefits should be construed liberally. The provision for additional depreciation is a one-time benefit, and any denial would frustrate the objective of promoting economic growth.

7. Judicial Pronouncements:
The decision relied upon the rationale of various judicial pronouncements to support the allowance of additional depreciation and emphasized that the law does not prohibit the carry-forward of unclaimed depreciation.

8. Conclusion:
After a thorough analysis of the facts and legal arguments, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the assessee's claim and deleted the disallowance of additional depreciation made by the Assessing Officer under Section 154. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Ld.CIT(A).

In summary, the judgment revolved around the disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 154 for AY 2012-13, emphasizing the need for a liberal interpretation of beneficial legislation to favor the assessee and the legal rationale behind the allowance of additional depreciation to encourage industrialization. The decision highlighted that Section 154 cannot be invoked for making such disallowances, and the denial of additional depreciation was deemed unjustified.