2012 (10) TMI 351 - AT - Income Tax

Renewable Energy Wins in Tax Appeal Decision

M/s. Asian Handlooms Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Trichy.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, focusing on the claim for depreciation on windmills and the disallowance of certain expenses. It ... Depreciation on windmill - treatment of building as plant - – Held that:- The assessee is entitled to entire amount claimed as depreciation on windmill. Expenses relating to the land and foundation specially incurred with a view to serve the technical requirements would also become a part of the plant in a case that of a wind mill. As decided by Court in case OF [Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Karnataka Power Corporation 2000 (7) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] whether a the building can be treated as a plant was a question of fact and when it is found as a fact that the building has been so planned and constructed as to serve the assessee’s special technical requirement, it would qualify to be treated as a plant – in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of Expenses - The Assessing Officer disallowed 2% of such expenses claimed on the vouchers directly without supported by any bill. The assessee claimed weaving, tailoring, samples and packing charges to the tune of Rs. 3.36 crores in its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer disallowed 2% of such expenditure amounting to Rs. 6,72,089/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2005-06 on identical facts the Assessing Officer disallowed 1% for such expenses on estimate basis on a turnover of Rs. 4.04 crores. Held that:- Having regard to the nature of business it is not possible to maintain all the bills and vouchers. However, the assessee maintained meticulously all the records and the expenses were duly recorded in the internal debit vouchers disallowance of 1% of such expenses would meet the ends of justice. - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Assessment order challenged by the assessee before CIT(A), Tiruchirapalli.2. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but upheld certain findings of the Assessing Officer.3. Assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal.4. Claim of depreciation on windmills and disallowance of various expenses contested.5. Counsel for assessee argued that issues were previously adjudicated by the Tribunal.6. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) remitted back to Assessing Officer.7. Tribunal considered previous orders and arguments of both parties.8. Tribunal analyzed the claim for depreciation on windmills.9. Tribunal reviewed the disallowance of expenses related to dyeing, tailoring wages, and other charges.10. Issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) sent back to Assessing Officer for fresh decision.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Tiruchirapalli. The Assessing Officer had made additions/disallowances in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but upheld certain findings of the Assessing Officer. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal.2. The counsel for the assessee argued that the issues raised in the appeal were already decided by the Tribunal in a previous case relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal had adjudicated on grounds related to depreciation on windmills and various expenses. The counsel contended that the issues of disallowance of expenses were already settled by the Tribunal.3. The Tribunal considered the arguments made by both parties and reviewed the orders of the authorities below. It also examined the previous order passed by the Tribunal in a similar case of the assessee relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal focused on grounds related to depreciation, specifically analyzing the nature of windmills and the eligibility for depreciation claims.4. Regarding the claim for depreciation on windmills, the Tribunal referred to the specialized nature of windmills and the essential components required for their operation. It highlighted the renewable and energy-saving aspects of windmills, emphasizing the legislative intent behind providing higher depreciation rates for such assets. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim for depreciation should not be restricted as done by the Assessing Officer.5. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of disallowance of expenses related to dyeing, tailoring wages, stitching charges, and other expenses. It referred to a previous order of the Tribunal in a different case where a 1% disallowance was considered fair. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 1% of such expenses.6. However, the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration since neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on this issue. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after providing a sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard in accordance with the law.7. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the analysis of the issues related to depreciation on windmills and the disallowance of certain expenses. The Tribunal's decision was guided by previous orders and legal principles, ensuring a fair and thorough consideration of the issues raised in the appeal.