2016 (5) TMI 720 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants appeal, allows carry-forward of unclaimed depreciation under Income-tax Act

M/s Meenakshi (India) Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 4 (1), Chennai

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to permit the remaining 10% of the additional depreciation claimed in the ... Disallowance of additional depreciation - asset put to use - Held that:- The Parliament by Finance Act, 2015 introduced third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act providing for carry forward of the balance 50% of depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of the asset. Probably, the Parliament might have taken the decision to incorporate third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) after considering the conflicting judicial opinions on the subject. Whatever may be the reasons, in view of the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. (2016 (4) TMI 34 - ITAT CHENNAI ), this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is eligible for remaining 10% of depreciation during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the balance 50% depreciation namely 10% of additional depreciation during the year under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Disallowance of 50% of Additional Depreciation:The primary issue in this appeal is the disallowance of 50% of the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had installed machinery in the previous assessment year and used it for less than 180 days. Consequently, the Assessing Officer allowed only 10% of the additional depreciation in that year. The assessee claimed the balance 10% in the subsequent year, which was disallowed by both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that there was no provision in the Income-tax Act to carry forward the depreciation to the subsequent year.Tribunal's Consideration:The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the relevant material on record. It was undisputed that the machinery was installed and used for less than 180 days in the previous year, and 10% additional depreciation was allowed. The balance 10% claimed in the current year was disallowed due to the absence of a provision for carrying forward the additional depreciation.Precedent Cases:The Tribunal referred to several precedent cases, including M/s. Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. v. DCIT (I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/2014), Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203, and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.268/2014). These cases established that if additional depreciation could not be fully allowed in the year of installation due to the machinery being used for less than 180 days, the balance could be claimed in the subsequent year.Interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia):Section 32(1)(iia) provides for additional depreciation at the rate of 20%. The Tribunal noted that the section does not specify the year in which the additional depreciation must be allowed, only that the assessee is eligible for it if the machinery is acquired and installed after 31-03-2005. The proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) restricts the deduction to 50% if the machinery is used for less than 180 days in a financial year but does not prohibit claiming the balance in the subsequent year.Judicial Opinions and Legislative Intent:The Tribunal highlighted the importance of interpreting beneficial legislation liberally to benefit the assessee. The Karnataka High Court emphasized that the intention of the legislation is to allow additional benefits to encourage industrialization and that the proviso should not restrict the assessee from claiming the balance in the subsequent year.Conclusion:In light of the above precedents and interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to claim the remaining 10% of the additional depreciation in the subsequent year. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the balance 10% of the additional depreciation.Result:The appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the balance 10% of the additional depreciation during the year under consideration.Order Pronouncement:The order was pronounced on 7th April 2016 at Chennai.