High Court Allows Additional Depreciation Beyond First Year

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision allowing the Respondent's claims for additional depreciation on new plant or machinery in subsequent years. The Court emphasized that Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act does not restrict claiming additional depreciation to the first year, promoting industrialization. The appeals were also dismissed as non-maintainable under Circular No. 3 of 2018, as the Revenue failed to show acceptance of the audit objection. The Court's ruling confirmed the availability of additional depreciation in subsequent years and the dismissal of the appeals due to non-maintainability.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of ITAT's deletion of disallowance of additional depreciation claims.
2. Maintainability of appeals under the exception clause of Circular No. 3 of 2018 issued by the CBDT.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of ITAT's deletion of disallowance of additional depreciation claims:

The appeals were filed by the Revenue Department against the ITAT's order favoring the Respondent-Assessee regarding additional depreciation on new plant or machinery claimed in the subsequent year of first usage. The Assessing Officer disallowed these claims for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, arguing that additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act can only be claimed in the first year of use. The CIT (A) upheld this disallowance.

The ITAT, however, allowed the Respondent's claims, relying on the Madras High Court's judgment in M/s Brakes India Limited v. DCIT, which permitted additional depreciation in subsequent years. The High Court examined the relevant section of the Act and noted that there is no restriction in Section 32(1)(iia) that additional depreciation can only be claimed in the first year. The provision aims to promote industrialization by allowing a 20% deduction on new machinery or plant, and the Revenue cannot impose extra conditions not specified in the statute.

The Court cited several judgments, including the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. and the Madras High Court in CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles Private Limited, which supported the view that additional depreciation can be claimed in subsequent years. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP against the Madras High Court's judgment further reinforced this position.

2. Maintainability of appeals under the exception clause of Circular No. 3 of 2018 issued by the CBDT:

The second issue concerned whether the appeals fell under the exception clause of Circular No. 3 of 2018, which allows appeals below the monetary limit if an audit objection is accepted by the Revenue. The audit objection in this case stated that additional depreciation is available only in the year the new plant and machinery are first used. However, the audit report itself indicated that the Income Tax department disagreed with this objection, stating that additional depreciation could be claimed in subsequent years.

The Court noted that the Revenue's own circular allows appeals below the monetary limit only if the audit objection is accepted by the Revenue, which was not the case here. Despite opportunities, the Revenue could not produce evidence that the audit objection was accepted. Consequently, the appeals were deemed non-maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed both appeals, agreeing with the ITAT's decision and confirming that additional depreciation can be claimed in subsequent years. The appeals were also dismissed on the grounds of maintainability due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018.

---