2022 (10) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing on several dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.12.2012 declaring income of Rs.39,23,24,830/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 27.02.2015 accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently the order u/s 154 dated 16.09.2016 was passed determining the income of the assessee at Rs.39,50,78,285/- and while doing so the Assessing Officer disallowed additional depreciation of Rs.27,53,455/-. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) contending that the eligible additional depreciation is calculated @ 20% on the cost of qualif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he plant and machinery which is eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year and only 50% of additional depreciation can be claimed in that year, balance 50% can be availed in the subsequent year. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (66 taxmann.com) (supra), which has been relied upon by the appellant on the said issue, have held as under: "It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the Apex Court, that beneficial legislation, as in the instant 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 sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trict/prohibit that the balance of 50% so calculated shall not be allowed in the immediate succeeding year. The additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) as provided by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 is explained by Circular No. 8 of 2002 27.08.2002 reported in 258 ITR (ST) 13 as being 'a deduction of a further sum' as depreciation, therefore, what was proposed to be allowed is depreciation though it was called as additional depreciation. Section 32(1)(iia) mandates the grant of additional sum depreciation. Therefore, any balance of the amount of additional sum depreciation would have to be considered to be carry forward and set off in terms of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Act. 6.4 Section 32(iia) of the Act is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etation of the law, suitable amendment was enacted under provisions of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) by the Finance Act, 2015, which is in line with the rationale of the allowability of the full eligible quantum of the claim of additional depreciation. 6.7 Therefore, considering the factual matrix of the case, ration of judicial pronouncements relied upon on the similar facts, I am of the considered view that the AO's denial of appellant's claim of additional depreciation is not justified. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs.7,80,906/- is hereby deleted. Ground of appeal is allowed." 4.1.3 Even otherwise also, the said issue cannot be subject matter of rectification under section 154. Section 154 provides ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....new order...... ..........What the Revenue intends to do in the present case is precisely the substitution of the order which, according to us, is not permissible under the provisions of section 154 and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record........ .........In order to bring in application u/s 154, the mistake must be 'apparent' from the record. Section 154 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified u/s....