2017 (10) TMI 161 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on depreciation and penalty issues, dismissing Revenue's appeals

The ACIT, Circle-I, Erode Versus M/s. The Zigma Technologies (I) (P) Ltd.

The tribunal dismissed all three appeals of the Revenue. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to sufficient cause found. The tribunal ruled in ... Depreciation claimed on temporary structure - whether the structure is not older existing structure but it is a new structure and also this structure cannot be considered as temporary structure - Held that:- There is a force in the argument of ld.A.R that the temporary structure created in leased out premises cannot be considered as a capital expenditure so as to grant depreciation over a period of 5 years. The judgement relied by the ld.A.R is rightly considered by the CIT(A) on the issue. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for 100% depreciation in respect of vinyl flooring, false ceiling, glass and wooden partitioning, electrical wiring, Net work cabling etc., in the leased premises as they are Temporary structures. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue. Issues:- Delay in filing the appeal- Allowability of depreciation on temporary structures- Allowability of expenditure on interior decoration- Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the ActDelay in filing the appeal:The appeal addressed a delay of 07 days in filing ITA No.2175/Mds./14 by the Department. The AO filed a petition for condonation of delay, which was heard by the tribunal. The tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and decided to condone it, admitting the appeal.Allowability of depreciation on temporary structures:The main issue in ITA No.2175/Mds./2014 was whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of depreciation claimed on temporary structures. The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on temporary structures needed for running computer systems as part of a contract job. The AO disallowed 80% depreciation, allowing only 20% for amortization over 5 years. The tribunal considered the nature of the temporary structures and whether they should be considered capital expenditure. The tribunal agreed with the argument that the temporary structures in leased premises cannot be considered capital expenditure, citing a relevant High Court judgment. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.Allowability of expenditure on interior decoration:In ITA No.2722/Mds./2016, the issue was similar to the previous appeal regarding the allowability of expenditure incurred on interior decoration of the office. The tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition made by the Ld.CIT(A) on this count, leading to the rejection of this appeal.Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act:The final appeal, ITA No.699/Mds./2016, dealt with the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for claiming depreciation at 100% on temporary structures created at leased premises. Since the tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition made by the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue, the penalty order could not be sustained. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed this appeal as well.In conclusion, all three appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by the tribunal, with detailed reasoning provided for each issue raised and decided upon.