M/s. Natesan Synchrocones P Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 572/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1042 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 32(1)(iia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 572/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. NATESAN SYNCHROCONES P. LTD., NO.6, 1 ST CROSS STREET, KASTURBA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 020. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(4), CHENNAI. (PAN: AAACN2399A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 347/2008-09 DATE D 25-03-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI P.B. SEKARAN, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL WAS IN REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AS WELL AS WINDMILL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL I.T.A. NO.572/MDS/2010 2 DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT FOR M NO.3AA WAS NOT FURNISHED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT BY THE AMEND MENT IN THE FINANCE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006 THE REQUIREMENT OF FURNISHING OF FORM NO.3AA HAD BEEN EXCLUDED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CI T(A) HAD ALSO APPRECIATED THAT FORM NO. 3AA WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED. HO WEVER, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD MISTAKENLY TOOK THE EFF ECT OF THE AMENDMENT TO BE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IT WAS THE SUBMI SSION THAT AS THE AMENDMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE FROM 1.4.2006 AND THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2006-07 THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING OF THE FORM N O.3AA WAS DONE AWAY WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VTM LIMITED, REPORTED IN 319 ITR 336 AS ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HI TECH ARAI LTD. , REPORTED IN 321 ITR 477. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 W .E.F. 01-04-2006 SHOWS THAT FORM NO.3AA IS NO MORE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE ELIGIB ILITY FOR CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AND WINDMILL W. E.F. 1.4.2006. AS THE AMENDMENT TAKES EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS I.T.A. NO.572/MDS/2010 3 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2006-07, RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF VTM LIMITED AND HI TECH ARAI LTD., REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHI NERY AND WINDMILL AS CLAIMED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09/03/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 9 TH MARCH, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE