2012 (8) TMI 703 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT allows Revenue's appeal on windmill depreciation claim. Importance of compliance with statutory provisions emphasized.

The ITAT allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A) order and remanding the case for a fresh decision. The firm's claim for higher ... Depreciation on windmill - dis-allowance of claim of higher depreciation @ 80% on ground that assessee has not exercised option as per proviso to Rule 5(1A) before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) for the relevant AY in which generation of power had begun - Held that:- CIT(A) has not passed speaking order giving detailed reasons for allowing the appeal of the assessee. Moreover, the AO in his assessment order has also taken contradictory stand with respect to the business of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the order of the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the AO to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. Issues:1. Claim of higher depreciation on windmill2. Validity of CIT(A) order3. Applicability of Rule 5(1A) of Income Tax RulesClaim of Higher Depreciation on Windmill:The case involved a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and exporting textile garments and fabrics that claimed depreciation on a windmill investment made after 1.10.2004. The firm sought higher depreciation at 80% but was denied by the Assessing Officer citing section 32(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 5(1A) of the Income Tax Rules. The AO held that the firm did not exercise the option before the due date of filing the return, thus making it ineligible for the higher rate of depreciation. The firm appealed to the CIT(A) who allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue's second appeal. The Revenue contended that the firm did not meet the conditions for claiming higher depreciation as per Appendix I of Rule 5 of the IT Rules due to a belated filing of the return.Validity of CIT(A) Order:The Revenue challenged the CIT(A) order primarily on the grounds that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the provision of Appendix I of Rule 5 of the IT Rules. The Revenue argued that the firm did not exercise the option for higher depreciation before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) of the IT Act, rendering it ineligible for the claimed depreciation. The Departmental Representative submitted a detailed note on the applicability of Appendix 1A under Rule 5(1A) and argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal without sufficient reasoning.Applicability of Rule 5(1A) of Income Tax Rules:The Authorized Representative for the firm contended that the firm was not a power generating company, and therefore, the provisions of Appendix 1A should not apply to them. The firm argued that it was entitled to the higher rate of depreciation at 80% as it was not engaged in the generation and distribution of power. The ITAT, Chennai noted that the CIT(A) had not provided a reasoned order for allowing the appeal and that the Assessing Officer had taken a contradictory stand regarding the nature of the firm's business. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering all relevant facts and submissions.In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned assessment in such matters.