The Above Appeal Was Admitted On The Followingsubstantial Questions Of Law v. Aztec Auto

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 25.03.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.1011 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant .vs. M/s. Devi Polymers Private Ltd.,TNK House, No.48, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002. PAN AAACD 1779 J ...Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "C" Bench, dated 09.04.2014 in I.T.A.No.165/Mds/2014 forthe Assessment Year 2007-2008 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(A)(c)II, Chennai–34 in I.T.ANo.404/13-14, PAN. No. dated 28-10-2013 for theAssessment year 2007-2008 against the order of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(4) Chennai-34 dated21-02-2011 in PAN.No /2010-2011 for the Assessmentyear 2007-2008 against the order of the Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Company Circle I(4)Chennai dated 21-12-2009 inPAN.No AAACD1779J for the Assessment year 2007-2008. For Appellant : Mr.T. Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr. R. Venkat Narayanan (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.165/Mds/2014 inrespect of the Assessment Year 2007-2008 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,"C" Bench, (forbrevity, the Tribunal), the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 2. The above appeal was admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law: “ (i) Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in holding that the assessee isentitled or additional depreciation under section32(1)(iia) on the plant and machinery purchasedand used in earlier year? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in holding thatthe assets were put to use only for less than 180days in the earlier year and hence, entitled tobalance benefit in the subsequent year?" 3. Mr. R. Venkat Narayanan, learned counsel appearingfor the respondent-assessee submitted that the questions oflaw involved in the present appeal were already decided bythe the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in Supreme Courtin the Judgment reported in [2020] 119 taxmann.com 215(Madras) [Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Aztec Auto (P.) Ltd] wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows: " 10. Be that as it may, the decision of theTribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[T.C. A.No.551 of 2013, dated 14-3-2017], was appealedagainst before the Division Bench of this Court in andthe Division Bench noted the decision in Rittal IndiaLimited as well as M.M. Forgings and ultimately,allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In doing so,the Division Bench of this Court distinguished thedecision in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. (supra) byobserving that the said case was not concerned with theissue with regard to right to carry forward the balanceadditional depreciation and followed the decision inthe case of CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. [2017]79 taxmann.com 411/246 Taxman 324/394 ITR 483 (Mad.), which was decided in favour of the assessee and inwhich decision, the decision in the case of RittalIndia (P.) Ltd.(supra), was also referred to. 11. The learned senior counsel for the revenuealso pointed out that so far as the claim of balance50% of the amount as in deduction was provided forinserting the proviso under section 32(1) and suchinsertion was with effect from 1-4-2016 by Finance Act,2015. which was decided in favour of the assessee and inwhich decision, the decision in the case of RittalIndia (P.) Ltd.(supra), was also referred to. 11. The learned senior counsel for the revenuealso pointed out that so far as the claim of balance50% of the amount as in deduction was provided forinserting the proviso under section 32(1) and suchinsertion was with effect from 1-4-2016 by Finance Act,2015. 12. In our considered view, the effect of theinsertion of the proviso in the year 2016, may not havea bearring on the present issue, as during the relevantassessment year 2009-10, the law which has been settledby the Division Bench of this Court is the case ofBrakes India Ltd. (supra), against the said decision,the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'bleSupreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 033755/2017 which wasdismissed by an order dated 24-9-2018. Thus, thedecision of the Division Bench in the case of BrakesIndia Ltd. (supra) having been approved by the Hon'bleSupreme Court, we are bound by the said decision andaccordingly, following the same. ..." 4. On a reading of the above Judgment, it is clear that theDivision Bench of this Court after taking into consideration thecase of Brakes India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [T.C. A.No.551 of 2013,dated 14.3.2017] and the case of CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles(P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 411/246 Taxman 324/394 ITR 483(Mad.) decided the questions of law in favour of the assessee. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this court in thecase of Brakes India Ltd., the Revenue preferred an appealbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 033755/2017and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special LeavePetition by order dated 24.09.2018. Therefore, the decision ofthe Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Brakes India Ltd.has become final. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the considered viewthat the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench ofthis court in the Judgment reported in the Judgment reported in[2020] 119 taxmann.com 215(Madras)[cited supra]squarely appliesto the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Following the ratio laid down in the Judgments reportedin [2020] 119 taxmann.com 215 (Madras) [cited supra] thequestions of law are decided against the Revenue and infavour of the respondent-assessee. The Tax Case Appeal is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''C'' Bench.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A)(C)-II Chennai – 34.4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(4), Chnnai – 34.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel, S.R.No.19756/21+1cc to M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.19733/21 T.C.A.No. 1011 of 2015 SMI(CO)RN(03/05/2021)