TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionery and permanently installed machinery. These views, find support in the decision in the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Jain [ 2012 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] . Therefore, addition made by AO, on account of additional depreciation claim on higher rate,should be deleted.That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) in deleting the aforesaid addition. Addition being deduction from the secured loan and deletion of hire purchase suspense account - A.O. has added back hire purchase interest suspense - HELD THAT:- In the balance sheet as on 31.03.2011, hire purchase interest suspense account has been deducted from amount of term loan for disclosure compliance of schedule V1 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the same is supported by the audit report and certification of the Auditor. Therefore, we are of the view that the said amount of ₹ 36.00,000/- does not represent income. It is just re-grouped, reworked, re-arranged, reclassification of the figures in the balance sheet of the assessee for the purpose of presentation in the balance sheet and no any unaccounted money was introduced by the assessee company. Hence, after a careful consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on claimed by the assessee. The AO in his assessment order had stated that the assessee being a civil contractor, had to deploy various kinds of plant and machinery which includes several machines like JCB, Excavator etc. and goods transport vehicles like tippers for carrying raw materials etc. to different sites across the country. Assessee also maintained various kinds of motor vehicles to carry workers to the sites and for the use of the officials/directors. In its return of income, the asessee is found to have shown 30% on the WDV of vehicles used for its own business in the relevant yearunder consideration and thereby claimed depreciation of Rs.l,70,28,233/- @ 30%. The allowable depreciation rate as per assessing officer was @ 15%. It is worthwhile to mention that on verification of 'Schedule DPM' (Depreciation on Plant and Machinery) of the return filed by the assessee, wherein it is found that in column of 30% Block of Plant and Machinery that WDV as on 01.04.2009 is declared to be ₹ 3,25,93,616/- with additions for a period of 180 days or more to the tune of ₹ 32,78,346/- and deletion of ₹ 2,50,000/-. Apart from this, an amount of ₹ 4,22,77,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the material available on record. We note that only the point of dispute is that whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation at higher rate of 30% for tippers against the normal rate of depreciation @ 15%. It is not disputed, that tippers are vehicles and are registered under the Motor Vehicle Act,1988. The Assessing Officer had disallowed depreciation claimed @ 30% and restricted depreciation to 15% and disallowed ₹ 85,17,966/- as excess depreciation. The main reason given by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, was that the explanation given by the assessee that his vehicles were deployed in difficult areas particularly in the North Eastern Region and therefore, entitled higher depreciation, is an afterthought, which is offered only after the discovery of excess depreciation by the department. Secondly, the claim of the assessee that some vehicles were given on hire cannot be accepted, as no specific income has been declared from hiring purchases. 10. We note that the assessee as per assessment records have been claiming depreciation @ 30% on vehicles used in their business on the grounds of them been deployed in diffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. On these reasoning, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter - and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the Commissioner of lncome-tax in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken. We are of the view that the above cited precedents on principle of consistency are squarely applicable to the assessee under consideration. 11. We note that the A.O. could not bring any material on record, to dispute the assessee s claim, that the vehicles and other equipments were deployed in difficult areas and therefore, entitle to higher rate of depreciation. The A.O s contention, that the explanation given by the assessee, is an afterthought, and that no hiring charges have been received, is not supported by facts. The tippers used by the assessee in its business are registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They met the functional test as the basis for grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In other words, this is the amount of un-matured interest which shall be payable in future years over the tenure of the term loan. On the other hand, the same amount is included in outstanding amount of term loan in liabilities side of the balance sheet. Further, in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2011, hire purchase interest suspense amount has been deducted from the amount of term loan for disclosure compliance of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Accordingly, the corresponding amount of the previous year in the Balance sheet as on 31.03.2011 has been re-grouped to make it comparable with the figures of the current year. We therefore, request your honour not to add this amount to profit since the same is the amount of un-matured interest, which is not due for payment as on the Balance sheet date. The amount has been adjusted with secured loan for the compliance purpose only otherwise the term loan would have been remained overstated by the amount of un-matured interest with corresponding amount appearing in the assets side of the balance sheet. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the explanation offered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
