TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or plant, the additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) cannot be allowed. The additional depreciation itself is only for a new machinery or plant. The intention of the legislature was to give such additional depreciation in the year in which assets were put to use and not for any succeeding assessment year. There is nothing in the statute, which allows such claim of additional depreciation in succeeding year on machinery, though it was acquired in earlier year. That cannot be any presumption that unless a claim is specifically denied, it has to be allowed. In our opinion, each assessment year is separate and independent assessment year. The provisions of the section 32 of the Act do not provide for postponement or carry forward of the residua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-12. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. The order of Ld.CIT(A) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2.1. The Ld CIT(A) erred and directed the Assessing Officer to allow additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee on the basis normal depreciation. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) erred and has failed to know the assessee filed the revised return for the assessment year 15/08/2013(beyond due date). The revised return of income should have been filed before 31/03/2013 for the same should be valid. - 2.3 The Learned CIT(A) erred and that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation In the case of any new Plant and Machinery (Other than ships and aircrafts) been acquired and installed after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies were not acquired and installed in same Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12 and there already existed in block of plant and machinery of ₹ 671,46,33,632/- as on 31.03.2010 and at best the additional depreciation for the Financial Year 2010-11 can at best be restricted to the plant and machinery hired after 31.03.2010. According to the AO, the machineries were acquired and installed during the Financial Year 2009-10 was ready to use and the assessee was eligible for normal additional depreciation only during the financial year 2009-10. Against this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on plant and machinery first t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is eligible for the claim of additional depreciation on the plant and machinery installed till the date of commencement of production. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The primary contention of the ld.D.R is that the revised return filed belatedly on 15.08.2013 cannot be considered as the last date for filing the revised return was lapsed by 31.03.2013. According to the ld.D.R, the additional depreciation claimed on plant and machinery in the assessment year under consideration were not new plant and machinery and it was already acquired by the assessee in earlier assessment year as such cannot be considered for additional depreciation in the assessment year 2011-12. On the other hand, ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on which additional depreciation claimed was not acquired by the assessee in the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. It was acquired earlier to the Financial Year 2010-11. The provisions of the section 32(1)(iia) stipulates the granting of additional depreciation on new plant and machinery which has been acquired and installed after 31st day of March, 2005 by assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. The facts brought on record shows that the plant and machinery does not a new plant and machinery acquired in the assessment year under consideration. The first requirement for claiming additional depreciation is that it should be a new plant and machinery. The machinery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the plant and machinery was not new in the assessment year under consideration. The same issue was taken by this Tribunal in the case of CRI Pumps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 58 SOT 154(Chennai) and Brakes India Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1069/Mds./2010 dated 06.01.2012. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the order of the Tribunal of Delhi Bench in the case of K.L.Concast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 52 Taxmann.com 445(Del.) wherein held that the machinery was purchased in the instant assessment year and also capitalized in the instant year. However, in the present case, this plant and machinery already capitalized in the earlier assessment years and also appeared in the block of assets. In our opinion, the assessee is not entitled to addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
