2016 (5) TMI 720

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 32(1)(iia) of the Act and the balance was claimed during the year under consideration. However, both the authorities below disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no provision to carry forward the depreciation to the subsequent year. 3. On the contrary, Sh. A.B. Koli, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.1069/Mds/2010 dated 06.01.2012, found that each assessment year is separate and independent, therefore, in the absence of any provision to carry forward the residual additional depreciation, the assessee cannot claim the same in the subsequent year. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had installed the machinery and used the same for its business for less than 180 days in the earlier assessment year. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer has allowed 10% additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The balance 10% is now claimed during the year under consideration. The same was disallowed by the Assessing O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii): Provided that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of (A) Any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assessee, was used either within or outside India by any other person; or (B) Any machinery or plant installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest-house; or (C) Any office appliances or road transport vehicles; or (D) Any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year." 10. We have also carefully gone through the Second Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which reads as follows: "Provided further that where an asset referred to clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purpose of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cannot be denied by invoking Second Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 12. This issue was considered by the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cosmo Films Ltd (supra). The revenue has taken a similar ground as taken before this Tribunal that the assessee cannot carry forward the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. The Delhi Bench of this Tribunal after considering the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) and proviso to section 321)(ii) of the Act found that when there is no restriction in the Act to deny the benefit of balance 50%, the assessee is entitled for the balance additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. In fact, the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal has observed as follows at pages 641 and 642 of the ITD: " Thus, the intention was not to deny the benefit to the assessees who have acquired or installed new machinery or plant. The second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) restricts the allowances only to 50% where the assets have been acquired and put to use for a period less than 180 days in the year of acquisition. This restriction is only on the basis of period of use. There I no restriction that bal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....). At page 233 of the TTJ, the Tribunal has observed as follows: "40. There is nothing on record to show that the directions given by the learned CIT(A) are not proper. The eligibility for deduction of additional depreciation stands admitted, since 50 per cent thereof had already been allowed by the AO in the asst.yr.2005-06, i.e. the immediately preceding assessment year. Therefore, obviously, the balance 50 per cent of the deduction is to be allowed in the current year, i.e. asst. yr. 2006-07. The learned CIT(A) has merely directed the verification of the contentions of the assessee and to allow the balance additional depreciation after such factual verification. Accordingly, finding no merit therein, ground No.3 raised by the Department is rejected." 14. A similar view was taken by Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in MITC Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra). In view of the above decisions of the co- ordinate benches of this Tribunal on identical set of facts this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the balance 50% of the depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year, therefore, the orders of the lower authorities on this issue are set side and the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (ii)". The word "shall" used in the said Clause is very significant. The benefit which is to be granted is 20% additional depreciation. By virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10% can. be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days said financial year. .........very purpose of insertion of Clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20% deduction which shall be allowed. 10. It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the Apex Court, that beneficial legislation, as in the present case, should be given liberal interpretation so as to benefit the assessee. In this case, the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to only half of the same being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not fulfilled. But, that, in our considered view, would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal, in our view, has righly held, that additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encour....