By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
Princ. CIT vs. IDMC Ltd.; 393 ITR 441 (Guj):
The assessee was in the business of fabrication and
manufacture. For the A. Y. 2006-07, in assessment u/s. 143(3), its total income
was assessed at Nil after the Assessing Officer allowed its claim on additional
depreciation of 20% u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act, 1961, on account of its newly
purchased machinery. The machinery was purchased in the preceding year, but was
installed in the relevant year (A. Y. 2006-07). The Department audit party
raised the objection that as the machinery was purchased before March 31, 2005,
the claim of additional depreciation was not allowable to the assessee.
Therefore, in reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the
assessee’s claim for additional depreciation. The Appellate Tribunal allowed
the assessee’s claim.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Gujarat High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) The purpose and
object of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act,
1961 is to encourage the manufacturing sector by allowing the deduction of a
further sum equal to 20% of the actual cost of machinery or plant acquired and
installed. Therefore, the underlying object and purpose is to encourage the
industries by permitting the assessee in setting up the new undertaking or
installing a new plant and machinery to claim the benefit of additional
depreciation.
ii) No error had been
committed by the Appellate Tribunal in allowing the additional depreciation at
the rate of 20% u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the plant and machinery installed
by the assessee after March 31, 2005, the year in question. The purpose and
object of granting additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) was to encourage
industries and to give a boost to the manufacturing sector by permitting the
assessees setting up new undertakings or installation of new plant and
machinery an additional depreciation allowance.
iii) Thus
the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) was required to be interpreted reasonably
and purposively as the strict and literal reading of section 32(1)(iia) would
lead to an absurd result denying the additional depreciation to the assessee
though the assessee had installed new plant and machinery. The question of law
is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.”
