Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.3. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing statutorily eligible fresh claim made by the appellant for the first time during the appellate proceedings u/s 32AC of Rs 19,11,38,877/- being 15% of the aggregate amount of actual cost of the new plant and machinery eligible u/s 32AC(1A).

2. The primary grievance of the Assessee concerns not considering on merit its additional claim for investment allowance under Section 32AC(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"), amounting to ₹19,11,38,877/-.

3.2 Before the Ld. CIT(A),the assessee filed detail of total addition to asset for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015 amounting to Rs.138,32,62,812/-. Further, the assessee filed detail that new assets eligible for deduction u/s 32AC was amounting to Rs.127,42,59,177/- in respect of all the units. Relevant amount of new assets claimed is extracted as under:

                                                                                                 Apar Industries Ltd.        4





ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY
                           ADDITIONS                                             AMOUNT ELIGIBLE FOR
                                                                                  DEDUCTION U/S 32AC
              AS ON          AS ON                           AS ON          AS ON                           DEDUCTION
  NAME OF                                                                                                      U/S 32AC
               31.3.2014      31.3.2015        TOTAL          31.3.2014      31.3.2015         TOTAL
    UNIT                                                                                                         15%
ATHOLA        19,45,51,745   22,38,53,121    41,84,04,866    16,08,32,845   20,89,74,411    36,98,07,256      5,54,71,088
SILVASSA
              10,44,27,033   8,25,17,942     18,69,44,975    6,71,74,218    8,12,94,834     14,84,69,052      2,22,70,358
CONDUCTOR
UNFLEX
               8,54,87,696   2,51,63,834     11,06,51,530    7,58,47,587    2,26,44,571      9,84,92,158      1,47,73,824
CABLES
E BEAM        34,48,44,482   19,30,18,861    53,78,63,343    33,61,79,686   19,03,60,435    52,65,40,121      7,89,81,018
MARINE
                      -       15,52,492           -                  -       15,52,492       15,52,492         2,32,874
CABLES
RABALE
               6,71,74,218   4,19,39,873     10,91,14,091    6,71,74,218    4,19,39,873     10,91,14,091      1,63,67,114
UNIT
SILVASSA
               75,51,585     1,27,32,423     2,02,84,008      75,51,586     1,27,32,423      2,02,84,009       30,42,601
OIL
TOTAL RS :    80,40,36,759   58,07,78,545   1,38,32,62,812   71,47,60,138   55,94,99,039   1,27,42,59,177    19,11,38,877


  3.3        The assessee relied on the various decisions in its support that

"7.2.4. Discussion on verifiability of the conditions u/s.32AC, in appellate proceedings:

The depreciation schedule only reveals whether the claim of additions to fixed assets is recorded or not. Indeed no assessee blindly claims depreciation on additions to fixed assets unless such additions are recorded in the assets/depreciation schedule irrespective of whether such assets are installed in the P&M. Recording the new assets in assets schedule is obviously a necessary condition. But that alone does not prove that the new Apar Industries Ltd. 6 assets were brought into existence especially, when the Government grants additional benefit of deduction. The assessee should not eliminate the chances of verification by the Government, by not claiming the deduction u/s.32AC initially in the original Rol or even in revised Rol, but claiming after a long lapse of time in appeal process. The fact of installation new assets on ground cannot be checked from the Depreciation Schedule (both as per Companies Act and I-T Act) which gives only the information whether the additions to Fixed Assets were recorded or not in the Balance Sheet. However, what cannot be and could not be verified nearly after 4-1/2 years by the FAA when the appellant filed the additional ground for fresh claim or nearly after 9 years by the AO in remand proceedings is whether the assets purchased during the year were really new assets, whether the so-called new assets were installed in the business of the assessee and whether the conditions laid down u/s.32AC were duly satisfied. What the AO verified in Remand proceedings is only arithmetical accuracy of the numerical claims but not whether the assets acquired were new assets, but not whether the new assets only were installed and but not whether the new assets claimed to be acquired and installed were for business purposes of the assessee, Assessee might argue when the depreciation was granted on the additions to Fixed Assets, what prevents the AO from granting the additional allowance u/s.32AC. In this regard, the assessee is made aware that the depreciation is granted in the normal course u/s.32 on the basis of additions made to the Fixed Assets during the year irrespective of whether such additions to the Fixed Assets are new or old. But in case of allowance u/s.32AC, it can be granted only if the additions to Fixed Assets are new assets. From the appellant's fresh claim u/s.32AC made before me after so many years, the whole scheme of deduction claim appears as a design by initially not claiming the allowance u/s.32AC in the original Rol or even by filing the revised return since necessary verifications might follow in scrutiny proceedings, but to claim the allowance u/s.32AC in the appellate process so as to prevent the AO from unearthing the truth of the distant past. If this claim had been made by the assessee in the Rol for this AY 2015-16, the AO would have and could have easily examined whether the additions to Fixed Assets in FY 2014-15 were new or used before installation, by visiting and physically examining and if required through a certified Engineer. Moreover since the time-

7.2.5. Infeasibility of checking the conditions u/s.32AC:

Whether it is feasible to check the conditions of Sec.32AC after admission of fresh claim through additional ground of appeal? No:

If admitted, does it automatically mean the fresh claim of deduction is to be allowed? No, not necessarily, especially in factual matters of fresh claims. The fresh claim of deduction can be granted only on physical examination of the conditions laid down u/s.32AC. Whether these conditions can be examined by the AO after a lapse of 4-1/2 years from 31.03.2015 and after a lapse of nearly 9 years during the remand proceedings? It is impossible to make a time travel into past so as to check whether the conditions laid down u/s.32AC were fulfilled by the asséssee or not.