2022 (6) TMI 1521 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee entitled to balance additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) despite assets installed in previous year

Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi.

ITAT Delhi allowed assessee's claim for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). The case involved balance 10% additional depreciation claimed in current ... Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - benefit of additional depreciation u/s 32(2)(iia) is available in full as soon as the new assets are purchased and the fact that the said assets were put to use for less than 180 days does not affect such benefit - HELD THAT:- In assessment year 2013-14, since the assets were utilized for less than 180 days period, it had claimed additional depreciation @10% as against the eligibility of additional depreciation being 20%. The balance 10% of the additional depreciation has been claimed by the assessee in the year under consideration. The lower authorities had disallowed the claim of additional depreciation only for the reasons that the assets on which the assessee has claimed additional depreciation were not installed / added during the year under consideration but were added in earlier financial year. We find that identical issue arose before in the case of M/s. Godrej Industries Ltd. [2018 (12) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein after considering the decision of Rittal India (P) Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and other decisions cited therein has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Assessee is eligible for claiming additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act and therefore the same should not have been denied by the AO. We thus direct the AO to allow the claim of additional depreciation thus allow the ground of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question in this judgment is whether the assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15, given that the assets were acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the previous financial year (2013-14), and 50% of the additional depreciation was claimed in that year.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The relevant legal provision is Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for additional depreciation on new machinery or plant acquired and installed after March 31, 2005, by an assessee engaged in manufacturing or production. The second proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) restricts depreciation to 50% if the asset is used for less than 180 days in the previous year. The third proviso, added by the Finance Act 2015, allows the balance 50% depreciation to be claimed in the subsequent year.Precedents considered include:DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd.CIT vs. Hinduja FoundriesCIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd.The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. M/s. Godrej Industries Ltd.Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Shri T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The court interpreted Section 32(1)(iia) to mean that the provision allows for a total of 20% additional depreciation. The court noted that the restriction to 50% in the year of acquisition (if the asset is used for less than 180 days) does not preclude claiming the remaining 50% in the subsequent year. The court emphasized that the amendment made by the Finance Act 2015, which clarified this interpretation, was intended to remove any ambiguity and was therefore applicable to pending cases.Key evidence and findings:The court found that the assessee had indeed acquired and put to use the assets in question for less than 180 days in the previous financial year and had accordingly claimed 50% of the additional depreciation. The remaining 50% was claimed in the subsequent year, which was the subject of the dispute.Application of law to facts:The court applied the law as interpreted in the precedents and the amendment to conclude that the assessee was entitled to claim the remaining 50% of the additional depreciation in the assessment year 2014-15. The court reasoned that denying this claim would defeat the purpose of the beneficial provision intended to encourage industrialization.Treatment of competing arguments:The court considered the arguments from the Revenue, which contended that the provision for additional depreciation only applied to assets added in the year under consideration. However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive in light of the statutory amendment and the consistent interpretation by various high courts.Conclusions:The court concluded that the assessee was entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the lower authorities was set aside.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:'The language used in clause (iia) of the said section clearly provides that 'a further sum equal to 20 per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii).' The word 'shall' used in the said clause is very significant.''The amendment is clarificatory in nature and not prospective, as is sought to be contended by the Revenue.'Core principles established:Section 32(1)(iia) allows for a total of 20% additional depreciation, and if only 50% is claimed in the year of acquisition due to usage for less than 180 days, the remaining 50% can be claimed in the subsequent year.The amendment by the Finance Act 2015 is clarificatory and applies to pending cases.Beneficial provisions should be interpreted liberally to fulfill their purpose of encouraging industrialization.Final determinations on each issue:The court determined that the assessee is entitled to the remaining 10% additional depreciation for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was reversed.