2020 (1) TMI 1371 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal, grants additional depreciation for CNG conversion.

The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. The disallowance of additional depreciation ... Additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) - AO has held that the process of delivery of CNG to automobiles at the CNG filling centres does not amount to manufacture or production or an article or thing which is mandatory requirement for claiming additional depredation u/s 32 (1)(iia) - AO held that the assessee company is not entitled for additional depreciation as claimed in the return of income - CIT (A) confirmed the addition holding that the company is not into manufacturing or production of CNG - HELD THAT:- We hold that we are guided by the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case Central UP Gas Ltd.[2016 (12) TMI 814 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Compressed natural gas in its compressed form has a distinct identity and character and use. It is settled law of the Apex Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs.Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] that when a commodity acquires a distinct name, use and commercial identity, it would acquire the trait of 'manufacture'. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).2. Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Continuation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Order Passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):The assessee challenged the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], arguing that it was 'bad in law.' The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in isolation but focused on the substantive grounds of appeal related to the disallowance of additional depreciation and the penalty proceedings.2. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation Claimed Under Section 32(1)(iia):The primary contention was whether the assessee, a City Gas Distribution Company, was engaged in 'manufacture or production' of CNG, which is a prerequisite for claiming additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) both held that the assessee's activities did not amount to 'manufacture or production' and thus disallowed the additional depreciation claimed.The assessee argued that it obtained a certificate from the Central Excise Department and paid Central Excise duty, which should qualify it as being engaged in manufacturing activities. The process of converting natural gas into CNG was detailed, emphasizing that it involved significant transformation, including compression and filtration, which should be considered manufacturing.The Revenue countered that the definitions of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act and the Income Tax Act differ, and merely paying excise duty does not qualify the activity as manufacturing under the Income Tax Act. They cited various case laws to argue that not all activities amount to manufacturing.The tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Central UP Gas Ltd. Vs DCIT, which held that converting natural gas into CNG amounts to manufacturing as it results in a product with a distinct name, character, and use. The tribunal found this judgment applicable and persuasive, leading to the conclusion that the assessee's activities did qualify as manufacturing for the purposes of Section 32(1)(iia). Thus, the disallowance of additional depreciation was overturned.3. Continuation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):The assessee also appealed against the continuation of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal did not provide a separate detailed analysis on this issue within the text provided, but the implication of allowing the appeal on the primary ground (additional depreciation) suggests that the basis for the penalty might also be affected.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, primarily based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, which recognized the conversion of natural gas into CNG as manufacturing. This decision led to the allowance of the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was thus overturned, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.