SUPERFINE METALS P LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), , PUNE

raised before him. The same are reproduced below:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the A.O. was not justified in rejecting the application of the assessee filed u/s 154 of the Act seeking allowing of the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. It be allowed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the non-jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Vedanta Ltd. (supra) held that the Additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii-a) is to be allowed whether claimed or not. This legal issue in the absence of any contrary judgment of jurisdictional High Court judgment is allowable as it is binding on the authorities. It be allowed.

ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 12 Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. to 634/PUN/2021 AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the application under S. 154 was maintainable since no jurisdictional High Court judgment was binding on the authorities and issue being 'substantial questions of law' can be raised at any time and of any stage of the proceedings. The mistake of law pointed out u/s 154 be directed to be corrected allowing the application u/s 154 of the Act. It be held accordingly.

. The basic issue for consideration was no assessing authority was entitled to withhold the claim of Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii-a) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the withholding made by A. O. It be held accordingly.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law it was submitted S. 32(1) captioned 'Depreciation' which follows CIs. (i) / (ii), (ii-a) and (iii) which shows the depreciation was relevant to all clauses including Cl. (ii) and (ii-a) and it was not correct to contend that relief provided u/s 32(1)(iia) is a separate incentive. This legal interpretation was not appreciated by Ld. CIT(A). The resultantly the appeals were dismissed.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant-assessee relying solely on S. 154(7) which had no relevance in the legal issues pleaded before Ld. CIT(A). It was proved that such limitation provision of S. 154(7) is not applicable to the facts and law of this case. The Ld. ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 12 Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.631 to 634/PUN/2021 AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14 CIT(A) failed to appreciate this judicial interpretation.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and it was submitted before CIT(A) through written submissions that the mandate of Explanation 5 and the interpretation made the additional depreciation as provided u/s 32(1)(ii-a) has to be allowed under CI. (ii) in the absence of any separate provision for allowing of additional depreciation under Cl. (ii-a). The claim of additional depreciation be allowed to the appellant as per law.

5.3 Upon the receipt of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee company for impugned assessment years under adjudication filed a common application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 18/02/2021 thereby raised a claim for an additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) first time and also preferred an application for relaxation of 154(7) limitation in its case before the Central Board of Direct Taxes [for short “CBDT”] u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. In the absence any order from the CBDT granting any relaxation to the appellant company, the applications of rectification filed claiming additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act for impugned assessment years, in the light of limitation casted in sub-section 7 of section 154 were summarily rejected by the Ld. AO being time-barred.

ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 12 Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. to 634/PUN/2021 AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14 5.4 Aggrieved thereby the appellant company challenged the action of Ld. AO before the first appellate authority [for short “FAA”], wherein the Ld. CIT(A) beside echoing the views of tax authority below on ground of limitation set u/s 154(7) of the Act, has in the light of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in “Nagraj & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT” reported in 425 ITR 412, rejected to entertain the new claim of additional depreciation made by the appellant by filing of rectification application u/s 154 of the Act, as extra- legem.

5.5 Aggrieved by the orders of both the tax authorities below, the appellant company is before this Tribunal seeking relief on the grounds of appeal set at para 4 herein before.

6. During In the course of physical hearing, the learned representative for the assessee [for short “AR”] confirming the facts that, the original returns for the impugned assessment years were filed without a claim of additional depreciation which were processed summarily u/s 143(1) ITAT-Pune Page 7 of 12 Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. to 634/PUN/2021 AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14 of the Act, and upon initiation of 148 proceedings the assessee became aware of unclaimed additional depreciation. It is also submitted that, since the mistake was through oversight, apparent from record and claim of additional depreciation being bonafied needs one, hence due consideration thereof in arriving at correct computation of income is necessary, thus prayed for. Au contraire the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] reiterating the provisions of section 154(7) and absence of any relaxation from the CBDT in the appellant’s case, has strongly placed reliance of the orders of both the tax authorities below for dismissing the appeals of the appellant.

7. After hearing to rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused the material placed on record, case laws relied upon by the appellant as well the respondent and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties.

ITAT-Pune Page 8 of 12 Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. to 634/PUN/2021 AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14 8. The ground number 1 and 2 of the present bunch of appeals alleges the violation of principle of natural justice, however the facts reveals that, the orders of both the tax authorities below are culminated after according reasonable opportunities to the appellant and after due consideration to the written submissions made by the assessee during the proceedings before them, in the event the claim of the appellant being perverse stands dismissed, thus the ground number 1 and 2.

10.3 Since, the Ld. AR failed to bring on record any substantial evidence in support of allowability of belated claim made through belated application of rectification and in the absence of any order of relaxation from the CBDT, we beyond any iota of doubt are inclined to hold the orders of both the tax authorities free from any infirmity, ergo the ground ITAT-Pune Page 11 of 12 Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. to 634/PUN/2021 AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14 number 3 and its counter parts stand adjudicated against the assessee. Since the issue in the present bunch of appeals is adjudicated and dismissed on legal ground, the adjudication of meritare ground turned academic hence dispensed with.

-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिनाांक / Dated : 07th day of October, 2022. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

3. The Pr. CIT(Central), Pune (M.H.-India) 4. The CIT(A)-11, Pune (M.H.-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Pune Bench ‘B’, Pune 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY RDER, वररष्ठ ननजी सनिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायानिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 12 of 12