9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would apply to case covering past period also. In our view, ITAT has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raised any substantial question of law. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1861 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2021 - K. R. SHRIRAM AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr. Paras Savla a/w Mr. Harsh Shah i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Respondent. P. C. : Appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law for our consideration: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in quashing the order passed under Section 263 of the Act ? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in extending the benefit of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act to the next Assessment year, when the Income-tax Act does not provide such carryover, thereby violating the legal principles of Cassus omissus which states that the Courts can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (supra) has also relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. T. P. Textiles Pvt. Limited,394 ITR 483 wherein Madras High Court has considered the additional proviso which was inserted to Section 32(1) (iia) of the Act and has also concurred with the view of the Madras High Court that said newly added third proviso to clause (ii) of subsection 1 of Section 32 of the Act being clarificatory in nature would apply to case covering past period also. Paragraph 5 to 10 of Godrej (supra) reads as under: 5 Having heard Counsel for the Revenue and for the Assessee, we notice that the Assessee's claim of additional depreciation arises out of clause (iia) of subsection 1 of Section 32 of the Act. Clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act recognizes the depreciation on block of assets. Clause (iia) grants additional depreciation in case of acquisition and installation of new machinery or plant by an Assessee after 31st March, 2005, the Assessee being engaged in business of manufacture or production of an article or things. 6. We may also notice that the second proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This would necessarily mean that the balance 10 per cent additional deduction can be availed of in the subsequent assessment year, otherwise the very purpose of insertion of clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20 per cent deduction which shall be allowed. It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the apex court, that the beneficial legislation, as in the present case, should be given liberal interpretation so as to benefit the assessee. In this case, the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to only half of the same being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not 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, in our view, 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 gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer, stands removed by virtue of the Legislature, incorporating in the Statute, the necessary clarificatory amendment. 10.3 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 11: We may only indicate that during the course of the arguments, our attention was drawn to the Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2015 whereby, the aforementioned amendment was brought about. 11.1: The relevant part of the memorandum is extracted hereafter: .... To remove the discrimination in the matter of allowing additional depreciation on plant or machinery used for less than 180 days and used for 180 days or more, it is proposed to provide that the balance 50 per cent of the additional depreciation on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which has not been allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of such plant or machinery, shall be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. This amendment will take effect from 1 st April, 2016 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2016-17 and subsequent assessment years. 11.2:- A perusal of the extract of the memorandum relied upon would show that the legislatur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
