9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the assessee and verifying the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs..2,81,40,019/- and book profit under section 115JB of the Act at Rs..46,10,002/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). By considering the submissions of the assessee and by following various decisions, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, by filing copy of the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue of claim of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. With regard to the claim of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, we have perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii): Provided that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of (A) Any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assessee, was used either within or outside India by any other person; or (B) Any machinery or plant installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest-house; or (C) Any office appliances or road transport vehicles; or (D) Any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year." 10. We have also carefully gone through the Second Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, which reads as follows: "Provided further that where an asset referred to claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depreciation since the machinery was put to use for less than 180 days and the balance 50% shall be allowed in the next year since the eligibility of the assessee for claiming 20% of the additional depreciation cannot be denied by invoking Second Proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 12. This issue was considered by the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cosmo Films Ltd (supra). The revenue has taken a similar ground as taken before this Tribunal that the assessee cannot carry forward the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. The Delhi Bench of this Tribunal after considering the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) and proviso to section 321)(ii) of the Act found that when there is no restriction in the Act to deny the benefit of balance 50%, the assessee is entitled for the balance additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. In fact, the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal has observed as follows at pages 641 and 642 of the ITD: " Thus, the intention was not to deny the benefit to the assessees who have acquired or installed new machinery or plant. The second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) restricts the allowances only to 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no need to decide the alternate claim raised in ground no.3. The same is dismissed." 13. This issue was also considered by another bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in SIL Investment Ltd (supra). At page 233 of the TTJ, the Tribunal has observed as follows: "40. There is nothing on record to show that the directions given by the learned CIT(A) are not proper. The eligibility for deduction of additional depreciation stands admitted, since 50 per cent thereof had already been allowed by the AO in the asst.yr.2005-06, i.e. the immediately preceding assessment year. Therefore, obviously, the balance 50 per cent of the deduction is to be allowed in the current year, i.e. asst. yr. 2006-07. The learned CIT(A) has merely directed the verification of the contentions of the assessee and to allow the balance additional depreciation after such factual verification. Accordingly, finding no merit therein, ground No.3 raised by the Department is rejected." 14. A similar view was taken by Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in MITC Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra). In view of the above decisions of the co- ordinate benches of this Tribunal on identical set of facts this Tribunal is of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Section clearly provides that "a further sum equal to 20% of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under Clause (ii)". The word "shall" used in the said Clause is very significant. The benefit which is to be granted is 20% additional depreciation. By virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10% can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days said financial year. .........very purpose of insertion of Clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20% deduction which shall be allowed. 10. It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the Apex Court, that beneficial legislation, as in the present case, should be given liberal interpretation so as to benefit the assessee. In this case, the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to only half of the same being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not fulfilled. But, that, in our considered view, would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
