2017 (2) TMI 278 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to depreciation on plant and machinery not put to use during the year under consideration - assessee had stopped the manufacturing activity and therefore, the question of use of machinery does not arise - CIT(A) reversed the findings of the AO on the premise that individual items included in the block are not to be considered separately for the purposes of granting depreciation in light of the amended provisions - Held that - We do not find any legal infirmity in the aforesaid view adopted by the first appellate authority since the assessment order itself reveals that it is not the case of Assessing Officer that the assets were not put to use at all. Once the factory building is put to use, it is not possible to restrict the depreciation on the said building by stating that only a portion thereof has been put to use. Similarly, in relation to block of assets, it is not possible to segregate items falling within the block for the purposes of granting depreciation or restricting the claim thereof. Once it is found that the assets are used for business, it is not necessary that all the items falling within plant and machinery have to be simultaneously used for being entitled to depreciation. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Tribunal committed serious error in law in disallowing the depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery not put to use during the year under consideration?
2. Whether the Tribunal's finding and conclusion of upholding the disallowance towards the claim of depreciation is 'vitiated' on facts and sustainable in law on interpretation of section 32?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Tax Appeals were filed against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee on plant and machinery not used during the relevant year. The assessee, engaged in detergent manufacturing, had not carried out manufacturing activities during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee, leading to subsequent appeals. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, but the Revenue's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal. The main contention was whether assets not put to actual use for the year could still be eligible for depreciation. The court considered the argument that all assets within plant and machinery need not be simultaneously used to qualify for depreciation if they are used for business purposes. The court relied on precedents to support this argument and concluded that the Tribunal erred in disallowing the depreciation, ruling in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2:
In the second matter, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the disallowance of depreciation towards the claim of a specific amount was challenged. The Revenue argued that the assets must be actually used, not just ready for use, to qualify for depreciation. The court examined the Assessing Officer's reasoning for disallowing depreciation, which was based on the cessation of manufacturing activity by the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had a different interpretation, considering the assets as a block and not individually for depreciation purposes. The court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that once assets are used for business, it is not necessary for all items within plant and machinery to be simultaneously used for depreciation eligibility. Relying on legal precedents, the court found no legal infirmity in the first appellate authority's view and held in favor of the assessee, overturning the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee in both matters, holding that the Tribunal erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed on plant and machinery not put to use during the relevant year. The court emphasized that once assets are used for business, it is not mandatory for all items within plant and machinery to be simultaneously used for depreciation eligibility.