ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM V. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2 (3), CHENNAI

ITA 1232/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9588 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: M N RANGAMANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 32(1)(iia); 32

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. 1232/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO. B1 & B2, SIPCOT, INDUSTRIAL PARK, IRUNGATTUKOTTAI, SRIPERUMBUDUR, KANCHIPURAM, 602 105. [PAN: AAACI 2641E] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI 600 034. ( / APPELLANT) ( '#% /RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. M N RANGAMANI, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. S. BHARATH, CIT / /DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2018 / /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2018 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 51/CIT( A)-13/09-10 DATED 10.11.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. :-2-: ITA NO. 1232/CHNY/2018 2. M/S. ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSEE, IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOBILE COMPONENTS. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE BY ITS LETTER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ENTITLE D TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY ADDED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND HENCE REQUESTED THE AO TO ALLOW TH E ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA). THE AO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM STATING THAT IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY REVISED RET URN. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CI T(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL WITH TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2.1 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY OF RS. 12,6 7,66,119 MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY STAT ING THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A REVISED RETURN. 2.2 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELL ANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXPLANAT ION 5 TO CLAUSE (1) OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT IRRESPECTIVE OF TACT WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE SAME IN COMPUTING ITS INCOME AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2.3 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT T HE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF HON. (TAT AND OTHER HON. COURTS ARE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND HE IGNORED THE CASE LAWS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. 4. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR RS. 12,6 7,66,119/-, THEY :-3-: ITA NO. 1232/CHNY/2018 WERE PUT TO USE IN THE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS AND THE DATE OF PUT TO USE WERE NOT DISPUTED AND THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE DE PRECIATION AS PER SECTION 32 ALSO. HOWEVER, HE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ENTITLED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) R.W. EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 32(1). TH E LD. CIT(A) DID NOT NOT CONSIDER THE MERIT OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE AND ALSO THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS POW ER TO CONSIDER ON MERITS. IN SPITE OF THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S BROUGHT THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS AND ITATS ETC., TO THE L D. CIT(A), HE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS & LAW AND HENCE ITS APPE AL MAY BE ALLOWED. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THOUGH, IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N IN THE COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME, HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT IT HAS BROUGHT SUCH FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND PLEADED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM. IT IS SETTLED THAT THE PURPOSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES IS TO ASSESS CORRECTL Y THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. COURTS HAVE HELD THAT TO ACHIEVE THIS OBJECTIVE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY A NEW GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHOR ITIES ETC. SINCE, THE FACTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUES RAISED ARE O N RECORD AT THE :-4-: ITA NO. 1232/CHNY/2018 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS CIT (20 06) 284 ITR 323 (SC), WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION. THE AO IS AT FULL LIBERTY TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM AND DECI DE THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TO THIS EXTENT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 JPV /'5676 /COPY TO: 1. % / APPELLANT 2. '#% /RESPONDENT 3. 9 ) ( /CIT(A) 4. 9 /CIT 5. 6' /DR 6. < /GF