2019 (3) TMI 1890 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Depreciation Claim for Assets Used

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the allowance of additional depreciation claim for assets used for less than 180 days. The decision ... Disallowance of additional depreciation - HELD THAT:- The assessee being resident corporate entity was stated to be engaged in manufacturing of flexible packaging material, printing cylinders & metallized films. During assessment proceedings, upon perusal of depreciation schedule, it transpired that the assessee claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on the additions made in fixed assets used for the period of less than 180 days in AY 2012-13. Similar claim was made in the impugned AY and therefore, AO proceeded to disallow the same on the ground that the concerned plant & machinery was already used in various preceding years and it was no longer new plant & machinery. Although the assessee defended the same on the strength of certain judicial pronouncements, however, not convinced, the additional depreciation was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. We drew attention to the fact that the Tribunal has confirmed the stand of Ld. first appellate authority for immediately preceding AY 2012-13 [2019 (1) TMI 1899 - ITAT MUMBAI] and therefore, the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour. Issues:1. Additional depreciation claim under section 32(1)(iia) for assets used for less than 180 days.2. Retrospective application of the proviso under section 32.Analysis:Issue 1: Additional Depreciation ClaimThe appeal by the revenue contested the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 regarding the deletion of balance additional depreciation of Rs. 1,02,28,246 under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act for Plants & Machineries acquired and installed in the immediately preceding year but used for less than 180 days. The assessment for the impugned year was framed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, wherein the income of the assessee was determined after disallowance of additional depreciation claimed. The Ld. AO disallowed the additional depreciation on the grounds that the assets were not new and had been used in preceding years. The Ld. first appellate authority allowed the claim based on its decision for the preceding year, leading to the revenue's appeal before the tribunal.Issue 2: Retrospective Application of ProvisoThe second ground of appeal questioned the retrospective effect given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the third proviso under section 32. The appellant prayed for the reversal of the CIT(A)'s order and restoration of the Assessing Officer's decision. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee highlighted that a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had confirmed a similar stand in the assessee's favor for the preceding year. The Tribunal, noting the previous decision, dismissed the appeal, upholding the allowance of the additional depreciation claim for the assets used for less than 180 days.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the precedent set by a previous decision, where a similar claim for additional depreciation was allowed for assets used for less than 180 days. The decision emphasized consistency in the interpretation and application of tax laws, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal in this case.