2010 (3) TMI 828 - HC - Income Tax

Higher claim of depreciation to the assessee on the basis of the valuation - claim was not entertained by the Assessing Officer on the ground that in the absence of any revised return, the claim could not be processed - Held that - power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. The apex court has made it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , contention based on application of decision in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006 - TMI - 5171 - SUPREME Court) is misconceived in law, none of the grounds pleaded or urged at the time of hearing does the impugned order of the Tribunal give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, appeal is accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of depreciation claim based on valuation report.
2. Entitlement of assessee to claim depreciation.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment on revised return for deduction.
4. Finality of Commissioner (Appeals) order and subsequent Assessing Officer's decision.
5. Power of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act.

Issue 1: Interpretation of depreciation claim based on valuation report
The case involved a tax appeal by the Revenue regarding the allowance of a higher claim of depreciation to the assessee based on the valuation of assets submitted on a specific date. The assessee purchased a textile unit and claimed depreciation on the written down value of assets as per the valuation report. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the revised claim of depreciation, leading to appeals and subsequent orders.

Issue 2: Entitlement of assessee to claim depreciation
The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the revised claim of depreciation on its merits. The Assessing Officer, in the second round, concluded that the claim for depreciation as per the valuation report could not be accepted. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, held that the assessee was entitled to the claim of depreciation based on the valuation of assets submitted.

Issue 3: Applicability of Supreme Court judgment on revised return for deduction
The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in entertaining the appeal as per the Supreme Court judgment, which stated that a claim for deduction without a revised return was impermissible. However, the Tribunal correctly noted that the Revenue did not challenge the merits of the claim before them, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had attained finality.

Issue 4: Finality of Commissioner (Appeals) order and subsequent Assessing Officer's decision
The Tribunal's approach was deemed correct in law as the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been challenged by the Revenue, and subsequent decisions by the Assessing Officer were based on the merits. The Tribunal's findings on the applicability of Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were considered valid.

Issue 5: Power of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act
The Supreme Court judgment cited by the Revenue was clarified to be limited to the power of the Assessing Officer and not impinging on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act. The contention based on the Supreme Court decision was deemed misconceived in law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's order was upheld, dismissing the appeal as none of the grounds presented gave rise to any question of law, much less a substantial one.