2020 (11) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Decision Upheld on Additional Depreciation

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision to allow additional depreciation in the subsequent year. The ... Carry forward of balance additional depreciation to the following years - whether tribunal was right in holding additional depreciation can be allowed in the next year in case the same cannot be allowed in the earlier year? - HELD THAT:- Substantial questions of law raised for consideration have been answered against the revenue in C.I.T. Vs. Aztec Auto (P.) Ltd., [2020 (9) TMI 541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein held that where the assessee had claimed arrears on depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) in respect of asset under head 'plant and machinery' acquired in second half of the financial year 2007-2008, for which additional depreciation at ten percentage was allowed for the assessment year 2008-2009, the same held to be eligible. - Decided against the revenue. Issues:1. Additional depreciation allowance in the next year.2. Ignoring jurisdictional High Court's decisions.3. Ignoring the provision of carrying forward balance additional depreciation.Analysis:Issue 1: Additional Depreciation Allowance in the Next YearThe appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the allowance of additional depreciation in the next year. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the precedent set in C.I.T. Vs. Aztec Auto (P.) Ltd., where it was held that claiming arrears on depreciation for an asset acquired in a previous financial year was permissible, thus allowing the additional depreciation. The judgment cited previous cases and highlighted that the law was settled by the Division Bench of the Court, and the decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to allow the additional depreciation in the subsequent year was deemed appropriate.Issue 2: Ignoring Jurisdictional High Court's DecisionsThe revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, particularly in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on distinguishing factors and precedents, as highlighted in the judgment. The Division Bench of the Court referred to various cases and ultimately allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing that the case of M.M. Forgings was not directly related to the issue of carrying forward balance additional depreciation. The judgment further noted that the insertion of a proviso in 2016 did not impact the assessment year in question, and the decision of the Division Bench, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, was binding.Issue 3: Ignoring the Provision of Carrying Forward Balance Additional DepreciationThe Tribunal's decision was also challenged on the grounds of ignoring the provision of carrying forward the balance additional depreciation to subsequent years. The judgment addressed this issue by emphasizing the legal precedents and the binding nature of the decisions made by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. The judgment clarified that the insertion of a proviso in 2016 did not affect the assessment year under consideration, and the decision in the case of Brakes India Ltd., which was approved by the Supreme Court, was to be followed. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Tax Case Appeal and answer the substantial questions of law against the revenue was upheld.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and the binding nature of previous court rulings. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of each issue raised, ultimately affirming the allowance of additional depreciation in the subsequent year and emphasizing the significance of established legal principles in tax matters.