2004 (12) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation allowance - Tribunal applied the provisions of section 43(1) Explanation 4A to the assessment year in question and held that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation allowance - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Explanation 4A to section 43(1) which came into force with effect from October 1 1996 would be applicable to prior period transactions which has taken place during August 1995 relevant to the assessment year 1996-97? Held that it is axiomatic that the law governs the assessment is the law that is prevailing on April 1 of the assessment year in question and since Explanation 4A to section 43(1) of the Act came into force on October 1 1996 it has no application to the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal in our view has not applied the correct law

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Explanation 4A to section 43(1) to prior period transactions.
2. Adoption of WDV of assets for computing depreciation allowance.

Analysis:
The High Court of MADRAS addressed the issue of the applicability of Explanation 4A to section 43(1) to prior period transactions for the assessment year 1996-97. The court noted that the Tribunal had applied this provision, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, with effect from October 1, 1996, to disallow depreciation claimed by the assessee. However, the court found that this provision was not applicable to the assessment year in question, as the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1996. Both counsels agreed that the provision did not apply to the assessment year 1996-97. Therefore, the court held that the Tribunal erred in relying on Explanation 4A and directed a fresh consideration by the Tribunal in line with the prevailing law on April 1 of the assessment year.

Regarding the adoption of the Written Down Value (WDV) of assets for computing depreciation allowance, the court highlighted a discrepancy where the Assessing Officer was directed by the Tribunal to use the WDV of assets in the books of the transferor, even though the valuation report of the market value was undisputed, and the sale consideration was accepted in the assessment of the transferor. The court did not delve into this issue extensively but set aside the Tribunal's order on this point, directing a fresh consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court ordered the Tribunal to reexamine the matter, leading to the closure of the stay application filed in this regard.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the correct application of Explanation 4A to section 43(1) for the relevant assessment year and directed a fresh consideration by the Tribunal on both issues raised in the tax case appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of applying the prevailing law at the start of the assessment year and ensuring consistency in legal interpretations to uphold the principles of taxation law.