9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Godara, Judicial Member And Shri L. P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessee by : Sri M.V. Joshi, Adv. Revenue by : Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER PER BENCH This assessee s appeal is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1 [ CIT(A) for short], Hyderabad s order dated 25.04.2019 in case no. 10243/2018-19/DCIT, Cir.1(1)/Hyd/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2019-20 for A.Y. 2016-17 passed in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act for short]. Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law by dismissing the appeal. (General Ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear, the deduction shall be restricted to 50% of amount calculated at a percentage prescribed in sec 32(i) (iia) of the Act. (Legal Ground) 6. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee is eligible to claim the balance unexpired portion of the additional depreciation by virtue of second proviso of section 32(i)(iia). (tax effect: ₹ 11,74,152/-). 7. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has availed 20% additional depreciation (vide amendment inserted in Finance Bill 2005), not 35% additional depreciation (vide amendment inserted in Finance Bill 2015) and thus is eligible to claim the 50% of the 20% additional depreciation vide second proviso to section 32(i)(iia). 8. The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2016 in which Third Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) was inserted which says that and new additions to plant and machinery referred to section 32 (1 )(ii) and eligible for additional depreciation u/ s. 32 (1 )(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additions made which are put to use for less than 180 days, 50% of such depreciation would be allowed in the succeeding Asst Year. The appellant further submits that it is eligible for additional depreciation u/ s.32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of additional depreciation in respect of addition made in the preceding year to the previous year as only 50% of the additional depreciation was claimed on the Assets pu.t to use for less than 180 days in the earlier previous year and the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Since the claim for additional depreciation is not found to be valid, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the same should not be disallowed. In response, the assessee merely reproduced the relevant provisions of the Act and insisted on making correct claim. The submissions of the assessee are not acceptable. The Finance Act, 2015 inserted provision w.e.f. 01.04.2016. It is therefore apparent that the claim of unexpired portion of the additional depreciation u/ s.32(1)(iia) can be carried forward only from the AY 2016-17. In other words, the unexpired portion of the additional depreciation for the A Y 2016-1 7 can be carried forward and claimed in succeeding A Y 201 7-18. In the present case, therefore no claim of carry forward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n can be carried forward only from the AY 2016-17. Hence, I am in agreement with the action of the Assessing officer and the disallowance made on additional depreciation is sustained. 2.2. Suffice to say, it has come on record that learned lower authorities have disallowed assessee s additional depreciation claimed for sole reason that relevant assets had been put to use in earlier year(s) than in the relevant previous year. We find no merit in Revenue s stand since hon ble Madras high court in Brakes India Ltd.. vs. ACIT in CTA No. 55/2017 dated 14.3.2017 has accepted such additional depreciation claimed on the assets already put to use. The instant depreciation allowance is directed to be deleted. This assessee s appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
