9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 937 - AT - Income TaxDenial of depreciation - non continuation of manufacturing activity of the company - Held that - Assets have already entered into the block of assets, therefore, following the decision in the case of CIT Vs. G.R. Shipping (2009 (7) TMI 1169 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) hold that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the plant and machinery which have entered into block of assets and are kept ready for use but not used during the year. It has also been held in various decisions that where the plant and machinery were kept ready for production, the assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation even though such plant and machinery were not actually put to use by the assessee during the year (CIT Vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. 2007 (5) TMI 171 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and CIT Vs. Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in 2011 (2) TMI 453 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ). Also the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the AO in the subsequent years has allowed depreciation on the plant and machinery could not be controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
Allowability of depreciation on plant and machinery not used during the assessment year. Analysis: The appeal pertains to the denial of depreciation amounting to ?20,23,393 by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing Ethanol, explained that although no manufacturing activity took place during the relevant year, the plant and machinery were kept in a ready condition for future use due to market conditions. The AO disallowed the depreciation, emphasizing the lack of usage of plant and machinery. The Assessee argued that temporary suspension of manufacturing activities does not equate to business closure, and the assets were maintained for potential future use. The AO's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)), leading to the Assessee's appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, reviewed relevant orders, and analyzed the issue of depreciation on unused plant and machinery. Referring to a similar case before the Bombay High Court, it was established that assets within a block of assets, even if not actively used, are eligible for depreciation. The High Court's decision emphasized that the test of user should apply to the block of assets as a whole, not individual assets. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessee, having maintained the plant and machinery for potential use, is entitled to depreciation. The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed depreciation in subsequent years, further supporting the Assessee's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow the depreciation claim. In light of the above analysis and legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the entitlement to depreciation on plant and machinery within a block of assets, even if not actively used during the assessment year. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining assets for potential business use and reiterated that temporary suspension of activities does not negate the right to claim depreciation.
|
