DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4196/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 August 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, citing the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if exceptions applied.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order partly allowing the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance of additional depreciation. The tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below Rs. 50 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the ITAT given the revised monetary limits for appeals. The underlying issue was the disallowance of additional depreciation.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody (AR)
For Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan (CIT DR), Shri Satish Mody (AR)
Hearing: 29/08/2019Pronounced: 29/08/2019

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

2.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-

1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 70,95,028/- claimed u/s 32(1) (iia) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 70,95,028/- without appreciating the fact that as per Assessment Year: 2014-15 provisions of section 32(1) (iia) of the I.T. Act, 1961, additional depreciation is available only in the year in which the new plant & machinery is first put to use.? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 70,95,028/- without considering that the second proviso to section 32(1) (iia) of the I.T. act, 1961 which clearly mandates that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) [ or clause iia)] of the said section, 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 one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section 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) [ or clause (iia)], as the case may be?

3.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the respondent/assessee pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs. 50 lacs and as per Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the CBDT has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT from the existing limit of Rs. 20 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Ld. counsel submitted that this appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

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 →