Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 307 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - Excess depreciation has been allowed to the assessee in respect of Multiple Effect Evaporator Plant(MEEP) - HELD THAT:- As assessee submitted that MEE Plant falls within the meaning of Pollution Control equipment eligible for higher rate of depreciation @ 80% whereas, according to the Assessing Officer the said equipment does not help in pollution control and is not eligible for higher rate depreciation. The Assessing Officer examined assessee’s claim of depreciation during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and allowed the same. Now, on change of opinion the Assessing Officer is disallowing assessee’s claim of higher depreciation. The issue is highly debatable and hence, cannot be subject matter of proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. Short deduction of TDS on payment of rent - The assessee has furnished copy of letter addressed to Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, wherein it is mentioned that MEE Plant is an advanced technology plant to control pollution. The equipment which could be used for greater efficiency which also results in reduction of pollution whether such equipment can be categorized as pollution control equipment requires consideration and debate. Thus, MEE Plant whether eligible for higher rate of depreciation is a subject matter of debate which could not have been settled in rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act. The other issue is short deduction of TDS on payment of rent. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K.Tekriwal, [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that where there is shortfall in deduction of TDS no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). Thus, in the light of above decision no disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) could have been made in the case of assessee. We see no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. The same is upheld and appeal by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
|