2017 (4) TMI 1096 - AT - Income Tax

Additional depreciation not allowable in view of the provisions of Sec.32(1)(iia) - claim denied the reason that assessee apart from acquiring should have also installed the Plant and Machinery after 31.03.2015 but in the case of assessee since the Plant and Machinery was acquired before 31.03.2015 assessee - Held that - Claim of additional depreciation was before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. IDMC Limited (2017 (2) TMI 644 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) wherein held that the purpose and object of granting additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act is stated hereinabove i.e. to encourage the industries by permitting the assessee setting up the new undertaking / installation of new plant and machinery and to give a boost to the manufacturing sector by allowing additional depreciation deduction. Thus, as rightly held by the learned ITAT the provision of section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act is required to be interpreted reasonably and purposively as the strict and literal reading of section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act will lead to an absurd result denying the additional depreciation to the assessee though admittedly the assessee has installed new plant and machinery. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned ITAT in allowing the additional depreciation at the rate of 20% on the plant and machinery installed by the assessee after 31st Day of March 2005 i.e. the year under consideration. No substantial question of law arise. - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Reasonableness of rectification order without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant.
3. Allowance of additional depreciation at 15% instead of 20% of the actual cost of machinery as per section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Legality of Rectification Order under Section 154:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) regarding a rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged the legality of the rectification order, claiming that there was no mistake apparent from the record that needed rectification. The appellant argued that the order was without jurisdiction and legally untenable. The tribunal considered the arguments but upheld the legality of the rectification order, leading to the appellant's appeal.

Issue 2: Reasonableness of Rectification Order Without Opportunity:
Another ground of appeal was the lack of a reasonable opportunity given to the appellant by the Assessing Officer (AO) before passing the rectification order under section 154. The appellant contended that the AO did not consider their submissions and passed the order disregarding their contentions. However, the tribunal did not find merit in this argument and upheld the rectification order, leading to the appellant's further appeal.

Issue 3: Allowance of Additional Depreciation at 15% vs. 20%:
The main issue in the case was the allowance of additional depreciation at 15% instead of 20% of the actual cost of machinery as provided under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO disallowed the claim of additional depreciation, stating that the machinery was acquired before the specified date. The tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case. The tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for additional depreciation as per the provisions of the Act, and allowed the appeal on this ground. Consequently, the other grounds related to the rectification order were dismissed as not pressed by the appellant.

This judgment addressed multiple issues related to the legality of a rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the allowance of additional depreciation at the prescribed rate. The tribunal upheld the rectification order's legality and reasoned that the appellant was entitled to claim additional depreciation at 20% of the actual cost of machinery based on the specific provisions of the Act and a precedent set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The decision highlighted the importance of fulfilling the conditions for claiming additional depreciation and emphasized the purpose of encouraging new investments in plant and machinery through incentive provisions.