9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fulfilled. But, that, in our considered view, would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal, has rightly held, that additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization, and the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal. Thus the view adopted by the ld.CIT is contrary to law and facts. The Assessing Officer had rightly allowed the benefit of additional depreciation in the year under consideration. Under these circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, therefore, the assessee claimed onehalf of the additional depreciation that was allowable to the assessee. Therefore, the balance amount of additional depreciation would be allowable to the assessee in the year under consideration as per provisions contained in clause (ii) of sub section (1) of section 32. But the ld.CIT was not satisfied with the reasoning given by the assessee and he found that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, order passed by Assessing Officer was set aside with the direction to the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of additional depreciation made during the year under consideration. During the course of hearing before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the income tax Act does not provide for such carryover, thereby violating the legal principles of cassus omissus which states that the courts cannot compensate for what the legislature has omitted to enact? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that additional depreciation allowed u/s.32(l)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions has been construed reasonably and purposive without appreciating that the additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase the assessee is eligible only for 50% depreciation, the balance 50% cannot be carried forward for the subsequent year on the claim cannot be allowed in any other year?' 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ........ Provided also .............. Provided also .............. Provided also .............. Explanation I. .............. Explanation 2 . .......... Explanation 3 ............ Explanation 4 ............ Explanation 5 ............ (iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31 st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or generation or generation and distribution of power, 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............ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery 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 in the said financial year. This would necessarily mean that the balance 10% additional deduction can be availed in the subsequent assessment year, otherwise the 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 held by this Court, as well as the Apex Court, that beneficial legislation, as in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
