1997 (3) TMI 80 - HC - Income Tax

Appellate Authority, Assessing Officer, Claim For Depreciation, State Electricity Board, Writ Petition

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to issue notice for furnishing information regarding depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a writ application filed by an assessee challenging a notice issued by the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-12, Calcutta, regarding the petitioner's claim for 100% depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Income-tax Act amounting to Rs. 35.10 crores. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer had prejudged the matter by expressing opinions on the depreciation claim for 11 lakh electric meters purchased and leased out. The petitioner argued that the notice was erroneous and sought the court's intervention. The court examined the notice and concluded that the Assessing Officer had not made any final decision, emphasizing that quasi-judicial authorities are expected to pass final orders after considering all facts, applying the law, and hearing the parties. The court held that the Assessing Officer's remarks in the notice were not conclusive and did not amount to a denial of the petitioner's right to be heard. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the Assessing Officer had the authority to decide on the depreciation claim, subject to further appeal avenues available to the petitioner.

The petitioner's advocate argued that the term "paper transaction" used in the notice was not defined in the Income-tax Act and did not accurately describe the transaction involving the electric meters. The court analyzed the concept of "paper transaction" and highlighted that the Assessing Officer's observations in the notice were not final determinations but preliminary in nature. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer was yet to make a final decision on the depreciation claim and had the jurisdiction to seek additional information during the assessment proceedings. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the notice indicated a preconceived bias, stating that the Assessing Officer's role was to consider all relevant facts before making a decision. The court clarified that the petitioner had legal recourse through appellate channels if dissatisfied with the Assessing Officer's decision.

The court addressed the petitioner's concern regarding the potential tax liability if the Assessing Officer ruled against them, emphasizing that approaching the court to avoid tax obligations was not permissible. The court distinguished the present case from the judgments cited by the petitioner's advocate, noting that those cases involved clear admissions by both parties amounting to a jurisdictional error, which was not the situation in the current matter. The court dismissed the petition and imposed costs on the petitioner, rejecting the request for a stay on the judgment's operation.