Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 798 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT additional depreciation on the plant & machinery wrongly allowed by the AO - additional depreciation was allowed on assets purchased before 01.04.2002 but installed after 01.04.2002 - additional depreciation was introduced by the Finance Act, 2002 and it was to be allowed only if assets are acquired and installed after 01.04.2002 - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the date of purchase of machinery as given in the audit report and relied upon by CIT in the order u/s 263 was given on the basis of the date of proforma invoices. Proforma invoice is a kind of quotation given by the seller in order to help the buyer in taking decision regarding whether to place an order or not. It thus is not a confirmation of sale and the delivery of goods cannot be associated or inferred on the basis of proforma invoice so as to ascertain the date of acquisition of machinery. The delivery of goods is generally associated with the final invoices raised by the supplier and the same, in our opinion, is the relevant document on the basis of which the delivery of machinery can be ascertained or inferred. In the present case, a perusal of the summary of details and documents furnished on record clearly shows that the relevant invoices in respect of the machinery in question were raised by the concerned supplier only after 01.04.2002 except in case of one machine of small value of ₹ 2.6 lacs and the same, in our opinion is sufficient to show that the machinery in respect of which additional depreciation was claimed by the assessee had been acquired after 01.04.2002. Keeping in view the legal position emanating from the judicial pronouncement in Pr. CIT vs IDMC Ltd. [2017 (2) TMI 644 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Lakra Fabrics (P) Ltd.[2014 (1) TMI 591 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] and having regard to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on the plant & machinery in question for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2003-04 when the installation was completed and there was no error in the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) in allowing the same. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 on this issue - Decided in favour of assessee.
|