ACIT, CHENNAI v. Mahaveer Safety Glass Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1148/CHNY/2017 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 114821714 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AABCM9798H
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1148/CHNY/2017
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, CHENNAI
Respondent Mahaveer Safety Glass Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 21-11-2017
First Hearing Date 21-11-2017
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 08-05-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI ... # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO. 1148/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE -4(1) CHENNAI. VS. M/S. MAHAVEER SAFETY GLASS PVT. LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS FUSO GLASS (INDIA) LTD. ) FUSO HOUSE 4 TH FLOOR 91 POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD CHENNAI 600 084. [PAN: AABCM 9798H] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) %& / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. ARV. SREENIVASAN JCIT )*%& / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR ADVOCATE & /DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2017 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8 CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 17/2006- 07 DATED 03.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. :-2-: ITA NO. 1148/MDS/2017 2. M/S. MAHAVEER SAFETY GLASS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS FUSO GLASS (INDIA) LTD. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF M ANUFACTURING OF DEALING IN GLASS. IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05 THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIA TION U/S. 32(1)(IIA) AT RS. 78 69 122/- AND NOTED THAT IT FAILED TO FURNISH FOR M NO. 3AA TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIM WITH THE RETURN. WHE N THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION SHOUL D NOT BE DISALLOWED IT SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED REPORT U/S. 32(1)(IIA) PLE ADED THAT IT INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO ENCLOSE WITH THE RETURN AND THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED. THE AO REFUSED TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION STATIN G THAT THE REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WAS A MANDATORY ONE AND THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO DO SO. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ADMITTEDLY FORM 3AA WAS FILED IN THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FOLLOWING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.M. KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 376 ITR 456(SC) THE CIT (A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL W ITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O N THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA) OF RS. 78.6 9 LAKHS 2.1 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTEN TION OF THE AO THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) IS MAN DATORY PROVISION AND IT USES THE WORDS .... NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED AND HENCE THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT. :-3-: ITA NO. 1148/MDS/2017 2.2 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIRD PRO VISO TO CLAUSE (IIA) OF SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION. 2.3 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH FORM 3AA ALONG WITH RETURN OF INC OME AS PER RULE 5A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND HENCE THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.M. KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LT D. 376 ITR 456 HELD THAT EVEN IF FORM 3AA (IN WHICH THE REPORT OF AN ACCOUN TANT IS TO BE FILED UNDER RULE 5A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962) FOR CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1) (IIA) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT WAS FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESS MENT WAS MADE THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FOR GRANT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1) (IIA) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE ADDITIONA L DEPRECIATION. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. :-4-: ITA NO. 1148/MDS/2017 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) !' /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI 0 /DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER 2017 JPV &)1232 /COPY TO: 1. %/ APPELLANT 2. )*% /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ) (/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2) /DR 6. 7 /GF