9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Appeal No.10502/17-18 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: "1. That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to Rs.47,30,811/- disregarding the various decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The appellant craves to raise any other ground with the approval of the Hon'ble tribunal." 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO on perusal of the Profit and Loss account noticed that assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs.47,30,811/- u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Assessee was asked to show-cause as to why additional depreciation should not be disallowed. Assessee inter alia submitted that the additional depreciation @10% was on the plant and machinery and mould purchased between 2nd Oct 2012 to 31st March 2013 in F.Y. 2013-14. It was further submitted that since in that year, the assessee had put the assets at less than 180 days from the date of acquisition of the assets, assessee had claimed additional depreciation @10% in 2013-14 and the balance 10% additional depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had made additions to plant and machinery amounting to Rs.4,79,99,405/- for the assets purchased between 2nd Oct 2012 to 31st March 2013. In assessment year 2013-14, since the assets were utilized for less than 180 days period, it had claimed additional depreciation @10% as against the eligibility of additional depreciation being 20%. The balance 10% of the additional depreciation has been claimed by the assessee in the year under consideration. The lower authorities had disallowed the claim of additional depreciation only for the reasons that the assets on which the assessee has claimed additional depreciation were not installed / added during the year under consideration but were added in earlier financial year. We find that identical issue arose before Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. M/s. Godrej Industries Ltd., ITA No.511 of 2016 order dated 24.11.2018 wherein after considering the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowable, if the new plant and machinery so acquired is out to use for less than 180 days in a financial year. However, it nowhere restricts that the balance 10 per cent would not be allowed to be claimed by the assessee in the next assessment year. The language used in clause (iia) of the said section clearly provides that "a further sum equal to 20 per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii)". The word "shall" used in the said clause is very significant. The benefit which is to be granted is 20 per cent additional depreciation. By virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10 per cent can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, was considered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Shri T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 483, the Court referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) as well as the addition of third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under:- "10.1:- The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year. 10.2:- As a matter of fact, with effect from April 1, 20916, the ambiguity, if any, in this regard, in the mind of the Assessing Officer, 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 her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
