2015 (10) TMI 1597 - AT - Income Tax

Carry forward balance 50% of claim of additional depreciation to subsequent year - Held that - The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 281 - ITAT DELHI ), held that in section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the expression used is shall be allowed . Thus, the assessee company earned the benefit as soon as it has purchased new plant and machinery in full but restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divert the statutory right of the assessee. Thus, the assessee is entitled to depreciation in the subsequent year, if the entire depreciation is not allowed in the first year of installation. The assessee is entitled for 50% of the additional depreciation and there is no restriction to claim the additional depreciation, if otherwise available, to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowance of additional depreciation and carry forward in subsequent year.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the allowance of additional depreciation and the right to carry it forward to the subsequent year. The Revenue appealed against the direction given by the first appellate authority to allow the assessee to carry forward 50% of its claim of additional depreciation. The Revenue argued that this direction was beyond the scope of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the additional depreciation based on the period of usage of the plant and machinery. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of unclaimed depreciation and granted the additional depreciation to the assessee. The core question was whether the assessee was entitled to claim 50% of the additional depreciation and carry it forward to the subsequent year.

Upon considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal analyzed the case in detail. The Tribunal noted that the provision for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) was introduced to incentivize investment in plant and machinery for the manufacturing sector. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including decisions by the Delhi Bench and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, to support the assessee's claim for additional depreciation. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory right of the assessee to claim additional depreciation should not be restricted based on the period of usage of the assets. The Tribunal found no fault in the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to allow the carry forward of unclaimed depreciation and uphold the assessee's entitlement to 50% of the additional depreciation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to allow the assessee to carry forward 50% of the additional depreciation. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory rights of the assessee in claiming additional depreciation and emphasized the legislative intent behind the provision to boost investment in the manufacturing sector. The case set a precedent for similar situations where the period of usage of assets may impact the allowance of additional depreciation.