DCIT-9(3((2), MUMBAI V. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4146/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1593 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T S KHALSA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 32(1)(iia); 13; 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4146 /MUM/201 9 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) DCIT 9(3)(2) ROOM NO . 418 , 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 V. M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., 50 - A, GARWARE HOUSE SWAMI NITYANAND MARG VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI - 400057 PAN: AAACY5779P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T.S. KHALSA DATE OF HEARING : 15 .02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .05 .2021 O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD (JM) 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 16, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)] DATED 29.03.2019 FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS LD.CIT(A) ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT, IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AT THE RATE OF 50% DURING THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AS THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS ACQUIRED AFTER 30 TH SEPTEMBER , 2012 AND WAS PUT TO USE BEFORE 31 ST MARCH, 2013 . THE REMAINING 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2014 - 15. THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE BENEFIT U/S. 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT IS ONE - TIME BENEFIT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE BENEFIT FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 TO THE EXTENT OF 50% , NO FURTHER DEDUCTION CAN BE GRANTED. ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. RITTAL INDIA PVT. LTD., V. CIT. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD .CIT(A) ALLOWED CLAIM FOR THE BALANCE PORTION OF 50% ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MITC ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD., IN ITA.NO. 2789/MUM/ 2012 AND THE DELHI TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. COSMO FILMS LTD., [139 ITD 628] AND 3 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., ACIT V. SIL INVESTMENT LTD., [54 SOT 54]. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL SHRI VIJAY MEHTA APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. M/S. TCPL PACKAGING LTD., IN ITA.NO. 5403 & 5402/MUM/2016 DATED 23.02.2018 AND THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHR I T.P. TEXTILES (P.) LTD., [394 ITR 483] ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. M/S. RITTAL INDIA PVT. LTD., WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. THE O NLY QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR REMAINING 50% IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND THE COORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THESE DECISIONS HELD IN FAVOUR OF 4 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. M/S. TCPL PACKAGING LTD., (SUPRA) OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON . THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH WAS INSTALLED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WAS PUT TO USE AFTER 30TH SEPTEMBER WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN THE YEAR OF INSTALLATION AND PUT TO USE THE MACHINERY AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE INSTALLED THE MACHINERY AFTER 30TH SEPTEMBER AND WAS PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED ONLY FOR 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE YEAR OF INSTALLATION AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE REMAINING 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR 50% ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR DUE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY USED THE ASSETS FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF COSMO FILMS LTD. (SUPRA) AND SIL INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA). THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BALANCE 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE SUBSEQUEN T ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI T.P. TEXTILES (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) READ ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISO WILL LEAD TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THERE IS NO LIMITATION PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING 10% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WHILE HOLDING SO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 7.4. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE ISSUE AT HAND, RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE IN THE A.Y. IN ISSUE, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE NOTICED : 'SECTION 32 (1) IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF (I) BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE, BEING TANGIBLE ASSETS; (II) KNOW - HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE, BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1998, OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FO R THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED 5 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., (I) IN THE CASE OF ASSETS OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE ACTUAL COST THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; (II) IN THE CASE OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE THEREOF AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED: PROVIDED .... (A) & (B).... PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE AN ASSET REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II) OR CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN O NE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR AN ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II) 1`OR CLA USE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE: PROVIDED ALSO & EXPLANATION 1 TO EXPLANATION 5 (IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (OTHER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCY, 2005, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING OR GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, 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 ......' (EMPHASIS IS OURS) 8. PERTINENTLY, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, IN A DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RITTAL INDIA (P.) LTD., [2016] 66 TAXMANN.COM 4 (KARNATAKA), HAS INTERPRETED THE AFORESAID PROVISION, IN PARTICULAR, THE PROVISO INCORPORATED THEREIN. THE KARNATAKE HIGH COURT, IN THE SAID CASE, HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION GRANTED UNDER CLAUSE (IIA) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEES AND, TO ENCOURAGE IN DUSTRIALIZATION, EITHER BY SETTING UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT, OR, BY EXPANDING A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT, BY PURCHASING AND INSTALLING A NEW MACHINERY, OR, PLANT, AND PUTTING THE SAME TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. 8.1. THE COURT, WENT ON TO SAY, THAT WH ILE, THE PROVISO APPEARING IN SECTION 32(1) RESTRICTS THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO 50% OF THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED 6 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., FOR AN ASSET REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIA), NOWHERE DOES IT RESTRICT ALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL D EPRECIATION, WHICH IN PERCENTAGE TERMS, WOULD BE 10% IN THE SUCCEEDING A.Y. 8.2. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RITTAL INDIA (P.) LTD., AS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 7, 8 AND 9 OF THE SA ID JUDGMENT, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE EXTRACTED HEREAFTER : '..... 7. CLAUSE (IIA) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT, AS IT NOW STANDS, WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2005, APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006. PRIOR TO THAT, A PROVISO TO THE SAID CLAUSE WAS THERE, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE BENEFIT TO BE GIVEN ONLY TO A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, OR ONLY WHERE A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE DURING ANY YEAR PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8. THE AFORESAID TWO CONDITIONS, I.E., THE UNDERTAKING ACQUIRING NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY SHOULD BE A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, OR THAT IT SHOULD BE CLAIMED IN ONE YEAR, HAVE BEEN DOWN AWAY BY SUBSTITUTING CLAUSE (IIA) WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006. THE GRANT OF ADDITIONAL DEPR ECIATION, UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION, IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITH THE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIALIZATION, BY EITHER SETTING UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT OR BY EXPANDING THE EXISTING UNIT BY PURCHASE OF NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY, AND PUTT ING IT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE (II) OF THE SAID SECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ONLY 50% OF THE 20% WOULD BE ALLOWABLE, IF THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY SO ACQUIRED IS PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS IN A FINANCIAL YEAR. HOWEV ER, IF NOWHERE RESTRICTS THAT THE BALANCE 10% WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 9. THE LANGUAGE USED IN CLAUSE (IIA) OF THE SAID 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 IN THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR. THIS WOULD NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE BALANCE 10% ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION CAN BE AVAILED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, OTHERWISE THE VERY P URPOSE OF INSERTION OF CLAUSE (IIA) WOULD BE DEFEATED BECAUSE IT PROVIDES FOR 20% DEDUCTION WHICH SHALL BE ALLOWED.....' 7 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., 9. WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, PASSED I N CIT V. RITTAL INDIA (P.) LTD. 10. ACCORDING TO US, THESE ARE PROVISIONS INCLUDED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN THE STATUTE TO GIVE A FILLIP TO NEW INDUSTRIES AS ALSO TO EXISTING INDUSTRIES, WHICH SEEK TO EXPAND ITS SWAY, BY INVESTING IN AND MAKING USE OF NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY. 10.1 . THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) READ ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISO WOULD HAVE US COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, THERE IS NO LIMITATION IN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE BALANCE 10% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 10.2. A S A MATTER OF FACT, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2016, THE AMBIGUITY, IF ANY, IN THIS REGARD, IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, STANDS REMOVED BY VIRTUE OF THE LEGISLATURE, INCORPORATING IN THE STATUTE, THE NEC ESSARY CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENT. 10.3. THE AMENDM ENT BROUGHT IN THE RELEVANT PROVISO OBTAINING IN SECTION 32, READS AS FOLLOWS: .... 32. (1) ...... PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE AN ASSET REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIA) OR THE FIRST PROVISO TO CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET IS RESTRICTED TO FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT CA LCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR AN ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (IIA)FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THEN, THE DEDUCTION FOR THE BALANCE FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (IIA) SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER T HIS SUB - SECTION IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING PREVIOUS YEAR IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET: ....... (EMPHASIS IS OURS) 11. WE MAY ONLY INDICATE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE 'MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN FIN ANCIAL BILL, 2015', WHEREBY, THE AFOREMENTIONED AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT. 11.1. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE MEMORANDUM IS EXTRACTED HEREAFTER: '..... TO REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION IN THE MATTER OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT OR MACHINERY USE D FOR LESS 8 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., THAN 180 DAYS AND USED FOR 180 DAYS OR MORE, IT IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE THAT THE BALANCE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON NEW PLANT OR MACHINERY ACQUIRED AND USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION A ND INSTALLATION OF SUCH PLANT AND MACHINERY, SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2016 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016 - 17 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSME NT YEARS.' 11.2. A PERUSAL OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MEMORANDUM RELIED UPON WOULD SHOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNISED THE FACT THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE REVENUE CHOSE TO INTERPRET THE PROVISION, AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT WOULD LEAD TO DISCRIMINATION, IN RESPECT OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, WHICH WAS USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS, AS AGAINST THAT, WHICH WAS USED FOR 180 DAYS OR MORE. 11.3. IN OUR OPINION, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE AMENDMENT IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND NOT PROSPECTIVE, AS IS SOUGHT TO BE CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE. THE MEMORANDUM CANNOT BE READ IN THE MANNER, IN WHICH, THE REVENUE HAS SOUGHT TO READ IT , WHICH IS, THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN WOULD APPLY ONLY PROSPECT IVELY. 11.4. WE ARE, CLEARLY, OF THE VIEW THAT THE MEMORANDUM, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE, ONLY CLARIFIES AS TO HOW THE UNAMENDED PROV ISION HAD TO BE READ ALL ALONG. 1 1.5. IN ANY EVENT, IN SO FAR AS THE COURT IS CONCERNED, IT HAS TO GO BY THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE UNAMENDED PROVISION, AND THEN, COME TO A CONCLUSION IN THE MATTER. AS ALLUDED TO ABOVE, OUR VIEW, IS THAT, UPON A PLAIN READING OF THE UNAMENDED PROVISION, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM BALANCE DEPRECIATION IN THE A.Y., WHICH FOLLOWS THE A.Y., IN WHICH, THE MACHINERY HAD BEEN BOUGHT AND USED, ALBEIT, FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. 8. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE DECISION THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RITTAL INDIA (P) LTD. (380 ITR 423) AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY WAY OF PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL 50% DEPRECIATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH FOLLOWS THE ASSES SMENT 9 ITA NO. 4146/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) M/S. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., YEAR IN WHICH THE MACHINERY HAD BEEN BOUGHT AND PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. WE ALSO FOUND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE THE HON'BL E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RITTAL INDIA (P) LTD. (380 ITR 423). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISIONS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, T HE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THIS DECISION. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION WE UPHOLD ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE . 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED O N 13 .0 5 .2021 AS PER RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES BY PLACING THE PRONOUNCEMENT LIST IN THE NOTICE BOARD . SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI / DATED 13 / 0 5 / 2021 GIRIDHAR, SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM