TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er law, so claimed by the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 143(Asr)/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2015 - A D Jain, JM And B P Jain, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Padam Bahl, CA For the Respondent : Smt Ratinder Kaur, DR ORDER Per B P Jain, AM. This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the CIT(A), Bathinda, dated 30.12.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the AO for rejecting the claim made by the appellant for allowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on plant and machinery. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additional depreciation was a statutory allowance which had to be allowed, even when it had not been claimed as per explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during assessment proceedings, the assessee lodged a fresh claim of additional depreciation on plant and machinery amounting to ₹ 6,29,28,039/-. The AO disallowed the same for the reason that the assessee could not file a revised re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law even before the Appellate Tribunal. 4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the assessing officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), has made it clear that the issue in the said case is limited to the power of the AO but does not impinge on the power of the ITAT u/s 254 of the Act. Now, the issue has been raised by the assessee before us by way of present appeal. Therefore, we have to examine the issue whether the said claim of the assessee is a valid claim or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed by the Income Tax Authorities and accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the additional depreciation as per law, so claimed by the assessee and reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. Similar issue has been decided by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of sister concern of the assessee i.e., M/s. Satia Synthetics Ltd. (supra) and our order therein, is reproduced for the sake of convenience hereinbelow:- 9. As regards to the assessee's appeal i.e . I.T.A. No. 607(Asr)/2013, in which the assessee has raised only one ground regarding addition of ₹ 6,29,28,037/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on plant and machinery, after hearing both the parties on the issue in dispute, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee could file a revised return upto 31.03.2011 and since the claim in dispute is a fresh claim and has been made after said date, the same was not admissible. Learned First Appellate Authority upheld the view of the Assessing Officer by rejecting the claim of the assessee. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 read as under:- 4. We are unable to accept the submissions. The Tribunal has considered this issue and found that as per Form No. 10CCB filed during the assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was admissible. The finding of the Tribunal is as under:- 19. In view of the above, we find no error in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It has correctly been held by the first appellate authority, inter alia, that as per Form 10CCB filed during the assessment proceedings, the claim made by the assessee was admissible and the same remained to be allowed. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is hereby upheld in view of the above discussion. The grievance of the Department stands rejected.' 5. In view of the finding that the assessee was not making any fresh claim and had duly furnished the documents and submitted the form for claim under section 80IB, there was no requirement for filing any revised return. The judgments relied upon was not applicable. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it would be seen that the claim already made in the return could be considered and no fresh claim can be ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
