9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1204 - AT - Income TaxClaim of depreciation on coal fired pressure boiler restricted to 50% - put to use - Held that - The fact brought out on record relating to consumption of diesel and electricity up to January 2009 and post January 2009 clearly establishes the fact that the cogeneration plant has commenced productions in February 2009 and not in September 2008 as claimed by the assessee. The ledger account of the assessee also clearly mentions that the assessee has paid hotel bills of Mr. Lojet towards his visit on 02.03.2009 in connection with turbine erection. If as per assessee s version the cogeneration plant has started production in September 2008 there is no reason why Mr. Lojet should pay visit for erection of turbines on 02.03.2009. As the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with conclusive evidence that the cogeneration plant was put to use for the purpose of assessee s business on or before September 2008 we are unable to accept the assessee s claim of 100% depreciation on the cogeneration plant. Accordingly we uphold the order of the CIT(A). The ground raised by assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of depreciation claim on coal-fired pressure boiler to 50%. 2. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Restriction of Depreciation Claim on Coal-fired Pressure Boiler to 50%: The primary issue in this case was the restriction of the depreciation claim on a coal-fired pressure boiler to 50% by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacturing of bulk drugs, claimed 80% depreciation and an additional 20% depreciation on the asset, treating it as an energy-saving device. The A.O. challenged this claim on the grounds that the cogeneration power plant, which included the boiler and turbine, commenced operation only in February 2009, not in September 2008 as claimed by the assessee. The A.O. based his conclusion on several observations: - The control panel for the turbines was put to use only on 06.10.2008. - There was no significant reduction in diesel and electricity consumption until February 2009, indicating that the power generation did not start earlier. - The visit of a technical expert from Siemens in February 2009 suggested that the cogeneration plant commenced operation only then. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the A.O.'s decision, agreeing that the power generation unit was operational only from February 2009. The CIT(A) noted that the evidence provided by the assessee, such as the provisional certificate from the Inspector of Boilers, did not conclusively prove the commencement of power generation. The CIT(A) found the A.O.'s reasoning, based on diesel and electricity consumption patterns and the technical expert's visit, to be logical and supported by evidence. Upon appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reviewed the submissions and evidence. The ITAT emphasized that for claiming full depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, the asset must be used for more than six months in the relevant financial year. The ITAT found that the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence that the cogeneration plant was operational before September 2008. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the cogeneration plant commenced production in February 2009, thus justifying the restriction of the depreciation claim to 50%. 2. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The second issue related to the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not specifically argue this issue during the hearing. The ITAT noted that the levy of interest under these sections is mandatory, and the A.O. is bound to impose such interest. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed this ground of the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the depreciation claim to 50% and confirming the mandatory levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with conclusive evidence and adhering to the statutory requirements for depreciation claims.
|
