9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee claimed additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the new plant and machinery installed and used for manufacturing activity. Since the machinery was used for less than 180 days, the Assessing Officer allowed 10% of the additional depreciation. The assessee claims the balance 10% of additional depreciation during the year under consideration. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act for carry forward of balance 10% depreciation. Referring to the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Automotive Coaches Components Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/2014 dated 12.02.2016, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal by referring to the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the remaining 10% additional depreciation for the subsequent year. The Ld.counsel further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (supra). The Cochin Bench found that if additional depreciation could not be allowed at the rate of 20% during the year in which the machinery was installed, the balance 50% has to be allowed in the subsequent year. In fact, the Cochin Bench of this Tribunal has observed as follows:- 9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Section 32(1)(iia) reads as follows: 32(1)(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii): Provided that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of (A) Any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assessee, was used either within or outside India by any other person; or (B) Any machinery or plant installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purpose of business less than 180 days, the deduction shall be restricted to 50% of the amount calculated at the prescribed rate. Therefore, if the machinery is put to use in any particular year, the assessee is entitled for 50% of the prescribed rate of additional depreciation. The Income-tax Act is silent about the allowance of the balance 10% additional depreciation in the subsequent year. Taking advantage of this position, the assessee now claims that the year in which the machinery was put to use the assessee is entitled for 50% additional depreciation since the machinery was put to use for less than 180 days and the balance 50% shall be allowed in the next year since the eligibility of the assessee for claiming 20% of the additional depreciation cannot be denied by invoking Second Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 12. This issue was considered by the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cosmo Films Ltd (supra). The revenue has taken a similar ground as taken before this Tribunal that the assessee cannot carry forward the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. The Delhi Bench of this Tribunal after considering the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32(1)(iia) in an extra incentive which has been earned and calculated in the year of acquisition but restricted for that year to 50% on account of usage. The so earned incentive must be made available in the subsequent year. The overall deduction of depreciation u/s 32 shall definitely not exceed the total cost of machinery and plant . In view of this matter, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct to extend the benefit. We allow ground no.2 of the assessee's appeal. Since we have decided ground no.2 in favour of assessee, there is no need to decide the alternate claim raised in ground no.3. The same is dismissed. 13. This issue was also considered by another bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in SIL Investment Ltd (supra). At page 233 of the TTJ, the Tribunal has observed as follows: 40. There is nothing on record to show that the directions given by the learned CIT(A) are not proper. The eligibility for deduction of additional depreciation stands admitted, since 50 per cent thereof had already been allowed by the AO in the asst.yr.2005-06, i.e. the immediately preceding assessment year. Therefore, obviously, the balance 50 per cent of the deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... couraging industrialization, by either setting up a new industrial unit or by expanding the existing unit by purchase of new plant and machinery, and putting it to use for the purpose of business. The proviso to Clause [ii] of the said Section makes it clear that only 50% of the 20% would be allowable, if the new plant and machinery so acquired is put to use for less than 180 days in a financial year. However, it nowhere restricts that the balance 10% would not be allowed to be claimed by the assessee in the next assessement year. 9. The language used in Clause (iia) of the said Section clearly provides that a further sum equal to 20% of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under Clause (ii) . The word shall used in the said Clause is very significant. The benefit which is to be granted is 20% additional depreciation. By virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10% can. be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days said financial year. very purpose of insertion of Clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20% deduction which shall be allowed. 10. It has been consistently he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
