TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iia) of the Income Tax Act , 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the inherent aspect of the provisions of section 32((1)(iia) of the Act that, with insertion of the term " .... actual cost .... " (and not WDV), the additional depreciation is allowable only in the first year. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision in the case of Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi Vs. CIT (1952) 21 ITR 333 (Bom.) when no such debatable issue is involved. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, raise, any of the above, or any other ground raised. 3. The issue raised by the Revenue in the present appeal is against the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act, on account of claim of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act at Rs. 24,54,934/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the present case, original assessment was completed under section 143(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. As per the appellant, the additional depreciation will be available beyond first year also like the normal depreciation and the only condition is that the plant or machinery has been acquired after 31/3/2005. The department's stand in these cases has been that the additional depreciation is available only in the first year of acquiring the plant or machinery. The issue is pending at various appellate levels. Such a debatable issue cannot be dealt with under section 154 which is a provision meant to rectify mistakes apparent from record. It has been held in the case of Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi V/s CIT (supra) that the decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. There are several decisions similar to this. Therefore, the rectification order under section 154 is cancelled." 6. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue after taking us through the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act pointed out that section uses the word 'actual cost', on which the additional depreciation is allowable i.e. the same is to be allowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able issue, no rectification under section 154 of the Act could be carried out. In the said written submissions, the assessee had stated that it had claimed additional depreciation @ 20% on the cost of machinery which was purchased after 31.03.2005 i.e. in the year under appeal i.e. assessment year 2009-10. The assessee had claimed the deduction at Rs. 24,54,934/-, which was 20% of Rs. 1,22,74,673/-. Another contention raised by the assessee in the written submissions is that the additional depreciation was available for the assessment year in which the new machinery was installed and such depreciation was available to the assessee in the succeeding years till WDV of the machinery became nil. It is further stated by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that the machinery was acquired during 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 and was installed after 01.04.2005. However, during the course of arguments, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly admitted that where the plant & machinery was acquired in the accounting period for less than 180 days and only 10% of the cost of plant & machinery was available to the assessee as additional depreciation, it was en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 30.12.2011 . Thereafter, audit objection was raised against the assessee in respect of claim of depreciation resulting in short levy of tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 154 of the Act. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the additional depreciation has been wrongly claimed by the assessee. In reply, the assessee submitted that since it had purchased machinery after 31.03.2005 and the same was not office appliance, hence, it was entitled to the claim of additional depreciation @ 20%. The plea of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the said additional depreciation was available for the assessment year in which the new machinery was installed and was also available to the assessee in succeeding years till the WDV value of machinery became Nil. The Assessing Officer however, rejected the claim of the assessee and held the assessee to have claimed excess depreciation and consequently, the income was revised in the hands of the assessee after making an addition on account of excess depreciation of Rs. 24,54,934/-. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by observing that whether the additional depreciation was available only....