Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (10) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.12.2012 declaring income of Rs.39,23,24,830/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 27.02.2015 accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently the order u/s 154 dated 16.09.2016 was passed determining the income of the assessee at Rs.39,50,78,285/- and while doing so the Assessing Officer disallowed additional depreciation of Rs.27,53,455/-. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) contending that the eligible additional depreciation is calculated @ 20% on the cost of qualifying assets and since the assets were put to u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year and only 50% of additional depreciation can be claimed in that year, balance 50% can be availed in the subsequent year. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (66 taxmann.com) (supra), which has been relied upon by the appellant on the said issue, have held as under: "It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the Apex Court, that beneficial legislation, as in the instant 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 restrict .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... immediate succeeding year. The additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) as provided by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 is explained by Circular No. 8 of 2002 27.08.2002 reported in 258 ITR (ST) 13 as being 'a deduction of a further sum' as depreciation, therefore, what was proposed to be allowed is depreciation though it was called as additional depreciation. Section 32(1)(iia) mandates the grant of additional sum depreciation. Therefore, any balance of the amount of additional sum depreciation would have to be considered to be carry forward and set off in terms of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Act. 6.4 Section 32(iia) of the Act is an incentive provision for encouraging the industrialization and such a provision would .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1)(ii) by the Finance Act, 2015, which is in line with the rationale of the allowability of the full eligible quantum of the claim of additional depreciation. 6.7 Therefore, considering the factual matrix of the case, ration of judicial pronouncements relied upon on the similar facts, I am of the considered view that the AO's denial of appellant's claim of additional depreciation is not justified. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs.7,80,906/- is hereby deleted. Ground of appeal is allowed." 4.1.3 Even otherwise also, the said issue cannot be subject matter of rectification under section 154. Section 154 provides for rectification of mistake which is apparent from record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volka .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hich, according to us, is not permissible under the provisions of section 154 and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record........ .........In order to bring in application u/s 154, the mistake must be 'apparent' from the record. Section 154 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified u/s 154 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates