TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... machinery amounting to Rs. 6,29,28,039/-. The AO disallowed the same for the reason that the assessee could not file a revised return upto 31.03.2011 and since the fresh claim of additional depreciation has been made after the said date the same was not admissible. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. It was argued by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl, CA that the present issue is similar to the issue raised in the case of sister concern of the assessee M/s. Satia Synthetics Ltd., Muktsar, which has been decided by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in favour of the assessee vide order dated 27.01.2014 in ITA No.607(Asr)/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. A copy of the said order of ITAT, has been placed on record. He also relied on the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) and the cases relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The ld. CIT(A) mainly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of present appeal. Therefore, we have to examine the issue whether the said claim of the assessee is a valid claim or not. In the present case, the assessee submitted that inadvertently the assessee omitted to claim the additional depreciation on the plant and machinery in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act @ 20% amounting to Rs. 13,02,92,452/-. The Revenue have not established or have not brought on record that such omission was deliberate or malafide. The omission has been made inadvertently in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The reliance is placed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax. Central-I Versus M/s. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bombay), where it has been held by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, that the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal clearly indicated that both the appellate authorities had exercised their jurisdiction to consider the additional claim. The conclusion that the error in not claiming the deduction in the return of income was inadvertent could not be faulted for more than one reason. It was a finding of fact which could not be ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellate Authority upheld the view of the Assessing Officer by rejecting the claim of the assessee. We are of the view that the depreciation claimed by the assessee is a statutory right of the assessee and the assessee is eligible to claim on the same subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 32 of the Act. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee has not filed any fresh claim and it is a matter of record that the plant and machinery are available with the assessee and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee in its application dated 29.11.2011, has made a claim of additional depreciation on the plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 6,29,28,039/-. Learned First Appellate Authority has given his findings in the impugned order regarding the aforesaid issue at page nos. 3 to 5, the relevant portion is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience: "In Ground No. 2 of Appeal, it has been contended that the A.O. erred in disallowing the claim of the appellant for additional depreciation on plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 6,29,28,039/- under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. During assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made in the return could be considered and no fresh claim can be entertained if the same has not been made in the income-tax return. Accordingly, this judgment also does not help the appellant. Again, the learned A/R has also relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT, Central-I Vs. M/s Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. Reported at (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that the declaration of law is clear that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is co-terminus with that of the Income Tax Officer and if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellant authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground, even if not raised before the Income Tax Officer. The gist of this judgment is that the first appellate authority may exercise the powers of Assessing Officer but the issue involved in the appeal under consideration is different. Accordingly, this facts of this judgment have no bearing on the facts of the case under consideration. Apart from above, the learned A/R of the appellant has vehemently argued that Explanation 5 below section 32(1) of the Act clearly states that the provision of this sub-section shall apply whether....