2021 (5) TMI 202 - AT - Income Tax

Additional depreciation not claimed in the original return or not claimed through revised return, but, was claimed during the course of assessment proceedings - HELD THAT - As per the decision in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT the decision was limited to the powers of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 254. We, therefore, direct the AO to adjudicate the issue of additional depreciation which was not claimed by the assessee either in the original return or during the revised return on the basis of the fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of additional depreciation not made in original or revised return but during assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the denial of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee during assessment proceedings. The AO rejected the claim based on a Supreme Court decision, stating that additional depreciation could only be considered if a revised return was filed. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the case law cited by the appellant was not applicable at the AO and CIT(A) levels. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision did not limit the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to decide the issue of additional depreciation based on facts and law, providing the assessee with a hearing opportunity. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed.

The assessee, a partnership firm deriving income from rice manufacturing and trading, filed its return declaring income. The AO completed the assessment, making certain additions, including rejecting the claim for additional depreciation on machinery purchase. The CIT(A) dismissed the claim, citing the Supreme Court's decision and emphasizing the absence of a revised return. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the claim should have been allowed under section 32(1) and a Board Circular. The Tribunal highlighted that the Supreme Court's decision did not restrict the ITAT's power, directing the AO to reconsider the additional depreciation issue. As the assessee did not appear, the Tribunal decided based on available records and the arguments presented by the Revenue.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee included contentions against the CIT(A)'s order and the denial of additional depreciation during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal's decision focused on the assessee's right to claim additional depreciation even if not initially included in the return or revised return. The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's decision did not limit its authority, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard before deciding on the additional depreciation claim.