9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Deductibility of expenditure incurred on the sale of depreciable assets from the gross consideration received. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147: The assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147, arguing that the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction were not met. The reassessment was initiated after four years, and the assessee contended that all basic facts were disclosed fully and truly at the time of the original assessment. The assessee argued that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible. The Tribunal noted that the return was processed under section 143(1), where the Assessing Officer merely accepted the return without making any adjustments. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (291 ITR 500) which clarified that processing under section 143(1) does not constitute an assessment and that the Assessing Officer can initiate reassessment proceedings if there is a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, as the Assessing Officer had a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the reassessment proceedings. 2. Deductibility of Expenditure Incurred on the Sale of Depreciable Assets: The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the expenditure related to the sale of depreciable assets to be deducted from the gross consideration received. The Department argued that as per section 32(1)(iii), the gross consideration should be reduced from the block of assets, not the net consideration after deducting expenses. The Tribunal examined the provisions of sections 32(1)(iii) and 43(6) of the Income-tax Act, which define "money payable" as the price for which the asset is sold. The Tribunal also considered the analogous provisions of sections 48 and 50(1), which allow for the deduction of expenses incurred in connection with the transfer of assets when computing capital gains. The Tribunal referenced the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Essar Shipping Ltd. (104 TTJ 638), which held that incidental expenses should be deducted from the gross consideration received on the sale of depreciable assets. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses incurred in connection with the sale of depreciable assets should be deducted from the gross consideration to arrive at the net consideration. This net consideration should then be adjusted against the block of assets for the purpose of calculating depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order directing the Assessing Officer to deduct the expenditure of Rs. 3,76,96,350 from the value of sale consideration and adjust the net sale consideration with the value of the block of assets. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection on this ground. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both the Department's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. It upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 and confirmed that the expenditure incurred on the sale of depreciable assets should be deducted from the gross consideration received to determine the net consideration for depreciation purposes.
|
