9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. We are, at the same time, conscious that there has been no verification qua this aspect of the matter by the Revenue, who has proceeded by accepting the assessee’s claim. The assessee, therefore, has not got an opportunity to properly represent its case in the matter. We, accordingly, restrain from issuing any final finding in the matter, and consider it only proper to restore this aspect of the matter back to the file of the A.O. The assessing authority, where not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation, or if the assessee itself concedes not to press this aspect, shall, in giving effect to this order, allow deprecation at 50% of the cost for the current and the following year in-as-much as we have confirmed it to be eligible for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of depreciation in respect of Effluent Treatment Plant (E.T.P) of ₹ 18,93,674/-. 1.1 The CIT(A) is grossly erred in upholding the contention of the Assessing Officer by not allowing 100% depreciation on E.T.P. (Effluent Treatment Plant). 1.2 The CIT(A) is grossly erred in not considering the evidence filed before him and also erred in upholding the contention of the Assessing Officer that no evidence regarding expenditure incurred, equipment forming part of the ETP, cost incurred for assembling etc. were filed.' 2.2 At the first appellate stage, the assessee sought to refurbish its' said claim by furnishing a certificate from a Chartered Engineer (dated 18.12.2009) as well as the Environmental Audit Report (EAR) dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration of the materials before him, held as under: 'From the above report of the A.O. it may be noted that the assessee failed to furnish the evidence regarding expenditure incurred, equipments forming part of ETP, cost incurred on assembling, etc. even during the opportunity given in remand proceedings before A.O. This ETP as claimed by appellant is an in house developed ETP and not purchased from outside agency and hence assessee had to maintain all details of expenses incurred on its construction. Since the claim of 100% deprecation made by the appellant could not be verified by the A.O. for non submission of details, the same is not allowable as deduction and accordingly the disallowance made by the A.O. is upheld.' Aggrieved, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year, would it qualify to be a Water Pollution Control (WPC) Equipment, i.e., in terms of the relevant clauses of Appendix I, which read as under, so as to be eligible for depreciation @ 100%: '(ix) Water pollution control equipment, being - a) ………… b) ………… c) ………… d) ………… e) Mechanical flocculators and mechanical reactors f) …………. q) Activated carbon column' Clearly, it is not any WPC equipment, but one which is constituted or comprised of any of the specified systems, that would qualify for depreciation at the enhanced rate. In other words, an ETP is without doubt a WPC equipm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d examine the assessee's claims. This is more so as there is nothing on record to suggest otherwise, with the assessee having placed all the materials it is reasonably expected to before the Revenue authorities. We accordingly accept the assessee's claim of the ETP installed and being used at its' industrial unit as falling under the relevant sub-clauses of clause A (III)(ix) of Appendix-I and, thus, eligible for depreciation @ 100%. Coming back to the aspect of the date of the ETP being put to use for the first time, we find that despite having been allowed deprecation in full (at the normal rate), the following bills/vouchers indicate otherwise: a) Bill No. 17 of Civil Contractor (Diva Construction) dated 14.10.2005 after several work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is. In fact, even if not so, the bills, where the work is scheduled to be completed by a particular date, would normally be issued by that date or otherwise indicate to the work date. There is further nothing on record which could positively establish the use of the ETP from 01.10.2005, as in the form of commissioning report; ETP power consumption (which is separately metered); consumption of chemicals for use in ETP, et. as. The EAR contains specific reference to the ETP records. The EAR is also silent in this regard, being, as afore-noted, only for the period January 2007 onwards. We are, at the same time, conscious that there has been no verification qua this aspect of the matter by the Revenue, who has proceeded by accepting the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
