9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein after considering the decision of Rittal India (P) Ltd. [ 2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] and other decisions cited therein has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Assessee is eligible for claiming additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act and therefore the same should not have been denied by the AO. We thus direct the AO to allow the claim of additional depreciation thus allow the ground of assessee. - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri K.C. Singhal, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing anti-vibration auto parts. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring income at Rs.59,44,61,550/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed by the assessee as the new assets were purchased for less than 180 days in that year. He submitted that the assessee has therefore claimed the balance additional depreciation in the year under consideration. He submitted that the benefit of additional depreciation u/s 32(2)(iia) of the Act is available in full as soon as the new assets are purchased and the fact that the said assets were put to use for less than 180 days does not affect such benefit. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. reported in [2012] 139 ITD 628, decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hinduja Foundries reported in 281 Taxman 448 (Mad), decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 423 (Kar). He therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the claim of the assessee for the additional depreciation be allowed. 8. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and further submitted that provision for deduction of additional depreciation is for the new plant and machinery which has been added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess than 180 days in the said previous year. 7. In the context of such statutory provisions, the Revenue has raised the question whether when 50% of the additional depreciation is claimed by the Assessee in a particular Assessment Year, since the acquisition and putting in to use of the assets in the previous Year was for less than 180 days, the Assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent Assessment Year. Such a question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 380 ITR 423. The Court, after referring to the statutory provisions, held and observed in para 8 as under:- 8:- The aforesaid two conditions, i.e., the undertaking acquiring new plant and machinery should be a new industrial undertaking, or that it should be claimed in one year, have been done away by substituting clause (iia) with effect from April 1, 2006. The grant of additional depreciation, under the aforesaid provision, is for the benefit of the assessee and with the purpose of encouraging industrialization, by either setting up a new industrial unit or by expanding the existing unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law arises in this appeal for determination by this court. After the said judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., (supra), legislation has also amended the statutory provisions by adding the third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act, which reads as under:- Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (iia) for that previous year, then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset. 8. The third proviso, thus, now recognizes the right of an Assessee to claim the remaining 50% depreciation in subsequent year in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - In our opinion, as indicated above, the amendment is clarificatory in nature and not prospective, as is sought to be contended by the Revenue. The memorandum cannot be read in the manner, in which, the Revenue has sought to read it, which is, that the amendment brought in would apply only prospectively. 11.4:- We are, clearly, of the view that the memorandum, which is sought to be relied upon by the Revenue, only clarifies as to how the unamended provision had to be read all along. 11.5:- In any event, in so far as the court is concerned, it has to go by the plain language of the unamended provision, and then, come to a conclusion in the matter. As alluded to above, our view, is that, upon a plain reading of the unamended provision, it could not be said that the assessee could not claim balance depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days. 9. It could be thus, to seen that the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt., Ltd.,(supra) even without the aid of the statutory amendment held that remaining 50% unclaimed depreciation would be available to the Assessee in the succeed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
