ACIT, CHENNAI V. Mahaveer Safety Glass Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1148/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5778 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO. 1148/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -4(1), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. MAHAVEER SAFETY GLASS PVT. LTD., (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS FUSO GLASS (INDIA) LTD.,) FUSO HOUSE, 4 TH FLOOR, 91, POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 084. [PAN: AABCM 9798H] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) %& / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. ARV. SREENIVASAN, JCIT )*%& / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE & /DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2017 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 17/2006- 07 DATED 03.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. :-2-: ITA NO. 1148/MDS/2017 2. M/S. MAHAVEER SAFETY GLASS PVT. LTD., PRESENTLY KNOWN AS FUSO GLASS (INDIA) LTD., IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF M ANUFACTURING OF DEALING IN GLASS. IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIA TION U/S. 32(1)(IIA) AT RS. 78,69,122/- AND NOTED THAT IT FAILED TO FURNISH FOR M NO. 3AA TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIM WITH THE RETURN. WHE N THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION SHOUL D NOT BE DISALLOWED, IT SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED REPORT U/S. 32(1)(IIA) , PLE ADED THAT IT INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO ENCLOSE WITH THE RETURN AND THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED. THE AO REFUSED TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION STATIN G THAT THE REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WAS A MANDATORY ONE AND THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO DO SO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ADMITTEDLY, FORM 3AA WAS FILED IN THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FOLLOWING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.M. KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 376 ITR 456(SC) , THE CIT (A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL W ITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O N THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA) OF RS. 78.6 9 LAKHS 2.1 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTEN TION OF THE AO THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) IS MAN DATORY PROVISION AND IT USES THE WORDS .... NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED AND HENCE THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT. :-3-: ITA NO. 1148/MDS/2017 2.2 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIRD PRO VISO TO CLAUSE (IIA) OF SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION. 2.3 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH FORM 3AA ALONG WITH RETURN OF INC OME AS PER RULE 5A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND HENCE THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.M. KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LT D., 376 ITR 456 HELD THAT EVEN IF FORM 3AA (IN WHICH THE REPORT OF AN ACCOUN TANT IS TO BE FILED UNDER RULE 5A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,1962) FOR CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1) (IIA) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT,1961, WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT WAS FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESS MENT WAS MADE THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FOR GRANT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1) (IIA) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE ADDITIONA L DEPRECIATION. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. :-4-: ITA NO. 1148/MDS/2017 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) !' /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 JPV &)1232 /COPY TO: 1. %/ APPELLANT 2. )*% /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ) (/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2) /DR 6. 7 /GF