9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on assets given on lease by the assessee. 2. Examination of the nature of transactions (genuine business transactions vs. colourable devices). 3. Application of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Compliance with directions given by the CIT(A) in the original assessment order. 5. Identification and ownership of leased assets. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets: The primary issue in this appeal is the disallowance of depreciation on assets leased by the assessee. The assets in question include sugar mill rollers, second-hand gas cylinders, glass bottle moulds, and a continuous pusher type furnace. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation claims, treating the transactions as financing transactions rather than genuine lease transactions, and considered them as colourable devices aimed at reducing tax liability. 2. Examination of the Nature of Transactions: The AO found that the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on these transactions was significantly lower than market rates for pure finance transactions, suggesting that the transactions were structured to benefit from 100% depreciation claims. The AO noted that the lessees had unabsorbed losses and did not require depreciation benefits, indicating that the transactions were designed to reduce the assessee's tax liability. The AO relied on the Supreme Court's decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO to conclude that the transactions were not genuine. 3. Application of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act: The AO issued a show-cause notice for invoking Explanation 3 to Section 43(1), which addresses the reduction of tax liability through enhanced cost claims on assets previously used by another person. However, the AO did not ultimately invoke this section. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the basic criteria for identifying the leased assets and proving ownership were not met, and the transactions were treated as financing transactions. 4. Compliance with Directions Given by the CIT(A) in the Original Assessment Order: The assessee argued that the AO did not comply with the directions given by the CIT(A) in the original assessment order dated 22-3-1996. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to examine whether the assets were fully or substantially depreciated when purchased and whether the transactions were designed to claim depreciation on fully or substantially depreciated assets. The AO was also directed to examine whether the case fell under Explanation 3 to Section 43(1). The assessee contended that these directions were not followed, leading to a denial of justice. 5. Identification and Ownership of Leased Assets: The assessee provided detailed documentation, including invoices, challans, and confirmations from suppliers and lessees, to establish the purchase and lease of the assets. The assessee argued that the assets were distinctively identifiable and physically delivered, and the transactions were bona fide business transactions. The CIT(A) and the AO, however, raised concerns about the lack of specific identification details in the invoices and the failure to repossess certain assets after the lease period. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal examined the facts and evidence presented by both parties. It noted that the transactions of sale and lease back are recognized in law and are commonly practiced. The Tribunal emphasized that the genuineness of such transactions should be determined based on the facts of each case. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the transactions were sham or colourable devices. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not follow the specific directions given by the CIT(A) in the original assessment order. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had established the purchase and lease of the assets, and the transactions were genuine business transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the depreciation claims on the leased assets, as the conditions for claiming depreciation under Section 32 were satisfied. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee-company was allowed, and the disallowance of depreciation on the leased assets was overturned. The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine business transactions, and the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the leased assets.
|
