AMIT KUMAR CHANANIA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1372/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had misunderstood the facts and the AO's assessment order. The disallowance of additional depreciation was not justified. Therefore, the addition made on account of this disallowance was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed additional depreciation on plant and machinery under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, allowing only normal depreciation. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, misunderstanding the AO's reasoning.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation on plant and machinery when the AO and CIT(A) have disallowed it based on a misunderstanding of the facts and provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(iia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG

Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 11.05.2026

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 06.08.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1372/JPR/2025 Amit Kumar Chanania

1.

The impugned order issued by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) RWS 1448 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 21.02.2025 as well as the notices are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 91,69,369/- made by the Id. AO on account of an additional depreciation on plant and machinery claimed under Section 32(1) (iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the materials and details available. The Ld. AO and CIT(A) have also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the allowance so made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural justice the same may kindly be deleted in full.

3.

The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A B C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.

4.

The appellant prays your honours indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.

3.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 91,69,369/- claimed by the assessee on additional depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee admittedly purchased plant and machinery and the same were put to use during the year and claimed depreciation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs.68,77,027/- and further claimed additional

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1372/JPR/2025 Amit Kumar Chanania depreciation at the rate of 20% amounting to Rs. 91,69,369/- under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. As per the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation of such percentage on the written down value of the eligible assets as may be prescribed. The assessee accordingly claimed depreciation at the rate of 15% as prescribed. Further, as per the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation at the rate of 20% in case of any new machinery or plant which has been acquired and installed after 31st day of March 2005 and the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing or in the business of generation, transmission or distribution of power on such plant or machinery. The assessee, accordingly, claimed the aforesaid depreciation and additional depreciation. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed only the normal depreciation and did not allow the additional depreciation as he could not understand the rationale for the claim of additional depreciation.

4.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), however, misunderstood the observation of the AO as if the assessee had not used the machinery during the year under consideration. However, it was not the case of the AO that the assessee had not used the machinery during the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) totally misunderstood the assessment order. Neither the AO had given any such justification for disallowance of additional depreciation nor observations of the Ld.

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1372/JPR/2025 Amit Kumar Chanania CIT(A)are factually correct. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the lower authorities in making the impugned disallowance of depreciation. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities on account of disallowance of additional depreciation is ordered to be deleted.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 11/05/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member Dated 11.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 32(1)(iia)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →