9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee in this regard. So, in case the asset was purchased in assessment year 2008-09 and was used for less than 180 days, then balance additional depreciation of 10% is to be allowed in assessment year 2009-10 and similar position is to be followed in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Assessing Officer shall verify this position and allow the claim of additional depreciation as directed by us in the paras hereinabove. The ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos.616 to 618/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2018 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Sudhendu Das ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to assessment year 2009-10. 5. The assessee in ITA No.616/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2009-10 has raised the following ground of appeal:- . 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on merits in confirming additions of ₹ 35,78,048/- made by the A.O. on account of additional depreciation claimed on machinery purchased on/or after 01.04.2005. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in processing of milk and milk products. The assessee was Co-operative society and it collects milk from primary milk societies spread over Kolhapur and adjoining districts. The case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny. For the year under consideration, the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance 50% of additional depreciation would lapse. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in this regard. 8. We find that similar issue of claim of additional depreciation in the year consequent to the year of purchase and being put to use, arose before the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Madhavan Nanu Pillai in ITA No.2222/PN/2013, relating to assessment year 2009-10 and the Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2015 had held as under:- 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present appeal is in relation to the claim of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Under the provisions of said section, the assessee is entitled to claim of additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad claimed depreciation @ 20% on the WDV of plant machinery of ₹ 1,22,74,673/-. The said depreciation was allowed to the assessee while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2011. Thereafter, audit objection was raised against the assessee in respect of claim of depreciation resulting in short levy of tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 154 of the Act. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the additional depreciation has been wrongly claimed by the assessee. In reply, the assessee submitted that since it had purchased machinery after 31.03.2005 and the same was not office appliance, hence, it was entitled to the claim of additional depreciation @ 20%. The plea o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative for the assessee fairly admitted that where the plant machinery was acquired in the accounting period for less than 180 days, only 10% of the cost of plant machinery was available to the assessee as additional depreciation in the first year and balance claim of additional depreciation to the extent of 10% was to be allowed in the next succeeding year. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee also submitted that the claim made by the assessee at ₹ 24,54,934/- @ 20% on cost of machinery was to be restricted to 10% on cost of machinery, which is to be allowed as additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. In view of the provisions of law, wherein additional depreciation is allowable to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided the issue on merits and it has been held that in case the plant machinery is held in the year of acquisition for a period less than 180 days, then balance 10% of cost of asset to be allowed as additional depreciation, is to be allowed in the succeeding year. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the aforesaid benefit. However, from the perusal of record, the relevant details of purchase of asset from year to year are not available. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of assessee in this regard. So, in case the asset was purchased in assessment year 2008-09 and was used for less than 180 days, then balance additional depreciation of 10% is to be allowed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
