TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Additional depreciation - number of days asset put to use - addition being balance 10% on the cost of machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days - AO rejected the claim of the assessee holding that there is no provision in the statute regarding carry forward of the additional depreciation - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. [ 2020 (11) TMI 1010 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] allowing the claim of additional depreciation to be carried forward which had not been claimed in the return of income. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 262/CHD/2020 (Assessment Year: 20112-13) - - - Dated:- 30-7-2021 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Navdeep Sharma, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Sandeep Dhaiya, CIT DR ORDER Per R.L. Negi, Judicial Member: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [for short the CIT(A) ], whereby the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the return. 2. That the worthy CIT(A) -3, Ludhiana erred in law and on facts in upholding the view of the Assessing Officer in not allowing additional depreciation of ₹ 8,10,89,138/- being balance 10% on the cost of machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days during the preceding year and restricted during the said year. 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that there is a delay of 24 days in filing of the present appeal and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the last date for filing appeal before the Tribunal was 03.05.2020; that the assessee company received the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 04.03.2020. Due to complete lockdown in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic from 23.03.2020 and subsequent restrictions imposed by the central/state governments from time to time, the assessee could not file the present appeal within limitation period. The Ld. counsel further invited our attention to the office order dated 30th issued by the Hon ble President ITAT, extending the limitation period for filing appeals and cross objections till further orders in view of the judgment of the Hon ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained by the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of exempt income is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to accept the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee computed on proportionate basis. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative (DR) submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance as per the settled law, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the same does not warrant any further action. The Ld. DR further submitted that sine the AO has made disallowance as per the provisions of the law, and the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme court in so many cases including in the case of Maxop Investment Limited vs. CIT, there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that the AO has wrongly computed the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act and rejected the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee on proportionate basis. The Ld. DR accordingly submitted that this ground of appeal may be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. We have heard the rival s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, an opportunity to the assessee to place on record all the relevant facts including his accounts and in the event that he comes to the conclusion that he is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. We may further observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent decision has further given a similar view in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha engineering India Ltd. (supra) and has held that the AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee is required to record his satisfaction that the self or voluntarily expenditure offered by the assessee or claim that no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of exempt income was not correct or the same was unsatisfactory on examination of the accounts of the assessee. Without recording such a satisfaction, he cannot proceed to apply Rule 8D for the computation of disallowance under section 14A. However, as observed above, in the case in hand, the Assessing officer has not followed the guidelines of objective satisfaction as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce (supra) while making the disallowance. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) has pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10% on the cost of machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days during the preceding year and restricted during the said year. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed additional depreciation amounting to ₹ 8,10,89,138/-as carryforward from AY 201112 on the machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding assessment year. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee holding that there is no provision in the statute regarding carry forward of the additional depreciation. In the first appeal the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO and dismissed this ground of appeal. 13. The Ld. counsel at outset, submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the group company case ITA No 1212/Chd/2019, ACIT vs. M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the facts of and the issue raised in the said case are identical to the facts and the issue raised in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. counsel submitted that this ground of the appeal may be allowed. 14. On the other hand, the Ld. DR did not deny that the Chandigarh Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
