Commissioner Of Income Taxtrichy v. M/S.alpha Mills Pvt. Ltd.atlas Chambers29-J, Pugalur Roadkarur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARANDTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKIT.C.A. NO. 309 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income TaxTrichy. .. Appellant - Vs - M/s.Alpha Mills Pvt. Ltd.Atlas Chambers29-J, Pugalur RoadKarur... Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act againstthe order dated 20.06.2014 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, made in ITA No.121/Mds/2014. against the order dated 7.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirappalli, made in ITA No.227/10-11/CIT(A)/TRY. against the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I, Trichy, made in GIRNo./PAN.AAACA 5661Q For Appellant: Mr. J.Narayanasamy JUDGMENT(DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appealfiled by it, the appellant/Revenue is before this Court by filing thepresent appeal raising the following questions of law :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theclaiming of higher depreciation in the return ofincome by the assessee on or before due date forfiling return is to be deemed as exercising of optionfor higher depreciation as per proviso to Rule 5 (1A)and therefore the assessee is entitled for higherdepreciation?" 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as hereunder :- The assessee filed return of income on 30.11.06 claimingdepreciation on windmill at the rate of 80%. The assessee alsoclaimed additional depreciation under Section 32 (1)(iia) of the Act.The assessment, which was completed under Section 143 (3) on26.11.08, was reopened under Section 147, and reassessment wascompleted under Section 143 (3) r/w 147 of the Act on 20.12.2010 byrestricting the claim of depreciation at 7.69% instead of 80% asclaimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee had notexercised its option for claiming higher depreciation before the duedate for filing of return as required under proviso to Rule 5 (1A) ofthe Income Tax Rules and also disallowed the additional depreciationclaimed by the assessee. Aggrieved against the said order, theassessee preferred appeal to the CIT (Appeals), who allowed the claimin favour of the assessee. As against the said order, the Revenuepreferred appeal to the Tribunal, which upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) against which the present appeal is filed. 3. When the matter was taken up, learned standing counselappearing for the appellant/Revenue fairly submitted before thisCourt that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the the case of Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd. -Vs - Commissioner of Income Tax (TCA Nos.330 of 2010, etc. Batchdated 09.09.20143), wherein this Court held that if the assessee hadexercised the option in terms of second proviso to Rule 5 (1A) of theIncome Tax Rules at the time of furnishing of return of income, itwill suffice and no separate letter or request or intimation withregard to of exercise of option is required. It was also furtherheld that if the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act is filed in time, then the assessee would be entitledto claim the relief as well. Accordingly, the issue was held infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. In the case on hand, this Court finds that the assessee hadexercised its option in terms of second proviso to Rule 5 (1A) of theIncome Tax Rules at the time of furnishing of return of income andalso further claimed additional depreciation under Section 31 (1) ofthe Act in time and, therefore, the issue raised in this appeal issquarely covered by the decision in Kikani Export's case (supra).This Court is in agreement with the proposition of law laid down in 4. In the case on hand, this Court finds that the assessee hadexercised its option in terms of second proviso to Rule 5 (1A) of theIncome Tax Rules at the time of furnishing of return of income andalso further claimed additional depreciation under Section 31 (1) ofthe Act in time and, therefore, the issue raised in this appeal issquarely covered by the decision in Kikani Export's case (supra).This Court is in agreement with the proposition of law laid down in Kikani Exports case (supra) and, accordingly, this appeal is liableto be dismissed. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue. The appeal, filed by theappellant/Revenue, fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarGLNTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Trichy.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I, Trichy. T.C.A. NO. 309 OF 2015GP(CO)EU(20/08/2015)