TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2009-2010 claimed additional depreciation of 10% on plant and machinery which were purchased and put to use in the previous year relevant to the preceding assessment year relying on section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ''the Act''). Assessee had used such plant and machinery for a period less than 180 days in the preceding year and therefore it could claim only 50% of the additional depreciation. The, claim for additional depreciation in the preceding assessment year in respect of new plant and machinery purchased in that year was restricted to 10%. Balance 10% coming to C4,33,414/- was claimed by the assessee in the impugned assessment year as carried forward additional depreciation from the preceding assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its favour. He directed the ld. Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. 5. Now before us, ld. Departmental Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the wordings of Sec. 32(1)(iia) of the Act did not allow a claim of carry forward unabsorbed additional depreciation. 6. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative once again relied on the very same decisions on which assessee had banked before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd 380 ITR 423. According to him, the decision of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was in accordance w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(iia) of the Act to the next assessment year when the Income tax Act does not provide for such carryover, thereby violating the legal principles of 'casus omissus' which states that the courts cannot compensate for what the Legislature has omitted to enact ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that additional depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialisation and the relevant provisions has been construed reasonably and purposive without appreciating that the additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase the assessee is eligible only for 50 per cent. depreciation, the balance 50 per cent. cannot be carried forward for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be . . . (iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power, a further sum equal to twenty per cent. of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii)." 7. Clause (iia) of section 32(1) of the Act, as it now stands, was substituted by the Finance Act, 2005, applicable with effect from April 1, 2006. Prior to that, a proviso to the said clause was there, which provided for the benefit to be given only to a new industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above, only 10 per cent. can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year. This would necessarily mean that the balance 10 per cent. additional deduction can be availed of in the subsequent assessment year, otherwise the very purpose of insertion of clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20 per cent. deduction which shall be allowed. 10. It has been consistently held by this court, as well as the apex court, that the 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 addition....