9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yer to rectify a mistake apparent on record and it did not amount to lodging of a fresh claim and he deleted the addition in dispute, as pointed out in the revenue appeal. We are of the view that the findings given by the learned First Appellate Authority is very much as per law, therefore we are fully agree with the same by upholding the impugned order on this very issue - Decided against revenue. Additional depreciation claimed under Section 32(1)(iia) on plant and machinery - Held that:- First Appellate Authority has wrongly rejected the claim of the assessee by upholding the findings of the Assessing Officer. As a matter of record, the assessee made the claim in dispute during the assessment proceedings and the same cannot be simply rejected on the ground that the assessee should have filed the revised return, which the assessee has not filed within time. Thus set aside the issue in dispute to the Assessing Officer with the direction that the claim for addition of depreciation on plant of machinery amounting to ₹ 6,29,28,039/- filed by the assessee in its reply dated 29.11.2011 may be allowed, if the assessee fulfils the condition enumerated under Section 32 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electronically declaring a business loss of ₹ 11,98,50,983/- for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) in compliance to which, the assessee furnished the audited accounts of the company along with other documents and details, as desired by the Assessing Officer time to time. Later on, the Assessing Officer made ad-hoc disallowance of ₹ 500000/- out of electricity expenses alleging that there is variation in electricity consumed for per unit production of final products on monthly basis. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee sent a letter to the Assessing Officer as on 29.11.2011 stating the fact that the assessee company while filing the return of income has inadvertently omitted to claim of additional depreciation on the plant and machinery in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and requested him to allow the claim for additional depreciation. It was also stated that by mistake the computation of add back of unpaid liabilities under section 43B of the Act on account of provisions of earned leave and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer made various additions in dispute, which includes ₹ 5 lakhs on account of consumption of electricity per unit for production of final products; ₹ 18,28,034/- on account of provision for gratuity; and ₹ 8,38,283/- for leave encashment under Section 43B of the Act in computation of income. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish month-wise details of goods manufactured vis- -vis electricity consumption. In response to the same, the assessee filed its reply dated 19.10.2011. After examining the same, the Assessing Officer found that there is a variation in the average consumption of electricity unit vis- -vis production shown. Learned First Appellate Authority deleted the addition in dispute by observing that the Assessing Officer has neither made comparative analysis of consumption of electricity with identical cases nor has he made any comparative analysis with the assessee s own case for the earlier years, thus, there was no justification in making the addition of ₹ 5 lakhs on ad-hoc basis, which the Assessing Officer has made this addition in para 7 at page nos. 3 and 4. 7. After hearing both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal filed by the Revenue i.e. I.TA. No. 592(Asr)/2013. 9. As regards to the assessee s appeal i.e. I.T.A. No. 607(Asr)/2013, in which the assessee has raised only one ground regarding addition of ₹ 6,29,28,037/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on plant and machinery, after hearing both the parties on the issue in dispute, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee could file a revised return upto 31.03.2011 and since the claim in dispute is a fresh claim and has been made after said date, the same was not admissible. Learned First Appellate Authority upheld the view of the Assessing Officer by rejecting the claim of the assessee. We are of the view that the depreciation claimed by the assessee is a statutory right of the assessee and the assessee is eligible to claim on the same subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 32 of the Act. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee has not filed any fresh claim and it is a matter of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly been held by the first appellate authority, inter alia, that as per Form 10CCB filed during the assessment proceedings, the claim made by the assessee was admissible and the same remained to be allowed. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is hereby upheld in view of the above discussion. The grievance of the Department stands rejected. 5. In view of the finding that the assessee was not making any fresh claim and had duly furnished the documents and submitted the form for claim under section 80IB, there was no requirement for filing any revised return. The judgments relied upon was not applicable. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it would be seen that the claim already made in the return could be considered and no fresh claim can be entertained if the same has not been made in the income-tax return. Accordingly, this judgment also does not help the appellant. Again, the learned A/R has also relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT, Central-I Vs. M/s Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders (P) Ltd. Reported at (2011) 349 336 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that the declaration of law is clear that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
