2013 (2) TMI 347 - AT - Income Tax

Additional Depreciation on plant and machinery - disallowance as assessee additional depreciation as plant and machinery which were acquired in assessment year 2005-06, whereas the installation of the said plant and machinery was completed on 31.1.2006 i.e. in the year under consideration - Held that - During the year for claiming additional depreciation u/s 32(i)(iia) both the conditions that new machinery or plant has been acquired and installed after 31.3.2005 were required to be fulfilled . Since undisputedly the new machinery or plant in question were not acquired after 31st day of March, 2005, the authorities below were justified in denying the claimed additional depreciation under the said provisions on that basis. Agreeing with the view of the Ld. CIT(A) that the court interprets a law and cannot legislate. The action of the authorities below in this regard is thus upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The assessee contested the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The claim for additional depreciation was based on the acquisition and installation of the assets in the assessment year 2005-06. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the claim, stating that the assets were acquired before March 31, 2005, making the assessee ineligible for additional depreciation. The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A) but was unsuccessful, leading to the matter being brought before the Tribunal.

2. The argument presented by the assessee's representative highlighted the necessity of fulfilling all provisions of section 32 for claiming depreciation. It was emphasized that ownership and use of eligible assets for business purposes are crucial conditions for claiming depreciation under section 32(1). The representative contended that the date of installation, not acquisition, is pivotal for determining eligibility for additional depreciation. Various judicial precedents were cited to support the liberal interpretation of incentive provisions in tax laws to promote industrial growth.

3. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the lower authorities' decisions, asserting that both acquisition and installation of assets are prerequisites for claiming depreciation under section 32(1). The Tribunal observed that the crux of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the terms "acquired" and "installed" in section 32(1)(iia). The Tribunal concluded that both acquisition and installation must occur after March 31, 2005, for an assessee to qualify for additional depreciation benefits.

4. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized that the conjunction "and" in the statutory provision mandates the fulfillment of both acquisition and installation requirements post-March 31, 2005. While acknowledging the need for a liberal interpretation of tax laws, the Tribunal underscored that adherence to statutory language is paramount for availing claimed benefits. The decision referenced a previous ruling by the Calcutta High Court but noted the distinction in the operative provisions during that case compared to the current scenario.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to disallow the claimed additional depreciation due to the assets not meeting the post-March 31, 2005 acquisition criterion. The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A)'s stance supported by a Supreme Court decision that courts interpret laws and do not create them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of additional depreciation on the plant and machinery.