2012 (12) TMI 810 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - section 254 - order of tribunal - held that - Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the contentions as well as evidence in the proceedings under section 254(2). It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of sec. 254(2) is very limited and circumscribed. A mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning which can be rectified u/s. 254(2). For exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 254(2), it is mandatory that a mistake should be wide apparent, manifest and patent and not a point which would involve serious circumstances of dispute of question of fact or law which requires investigation and verification of facts. Regarding rectification of mistake on account of disallowance of depreciation while calculating MAT (u/s 115JB) - held that - in view of the settled proposition of law the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the contentions as well as evidence in the proceedings under section 254(2). Once the finding has been given on merit than under the proceedings of 254 (2), the same cannot be reversed. - In favour of revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on discarded assets for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 254(2).
3. Depreciation disallowance while computing book profit under Section 115JB for assessment year 2007-08.
4. Typographical error in the amount of depreciation disallowed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Discarded Assets for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08:
The assessee contended that the Tribunal erred in disallowing depreciation on assets that were not discarded but merely not in use. The assets in question, including plant, machinery, and factory building, were still in existence and part of the block of assets. The Tribunal, however, found that the assets were discarded in compliance with the "Montreal Protocol" and the assessee received compensation of Rs. 15.60 crores for the discarded assets. According to Section 32(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, depreciation is not permissible on assets that are sold, discarded, demolished, or destroyed. The Tribunal concluded that the claim of depreciation was not permissible as the assets were discarded and the business activity had ceased.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 254(2):
The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 254(2), it does not have the jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence or re-evaluate contentions already considered. The scope of Section 254(2) is limited to rectifying "an obvious and patent mistake" and does not extend to reviewing or reversing the earlier order. The Tribunal found no apparent mistake in its original order and thus could not entertain the assessee's request for re-evaluation.

3. Depreciation Disallowance While Computing Book Profit under Section 115JB for Assessment Year 2007-08:
The assessee argued that depreciation on discarded assets should not be disallowed while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal, however, upheld the Assessing Officer's adjustment, stating that the depreciation on assets that were discarded and not in use could not be allowed. The Tribunal referred to Accounting Standard 6 (AS-6) and the Companies Act, which require depreciation to be based on the use or retention of the asset for business purposes. Since the assets were discarded and the business activity ceased, depreciation was not justified. The Tribunal also cited the Special Bench decision in Rain Commodities Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which allows the Assessing Officer to adjust net profit if the accounts are not prepared in accordance with the Companies Act and AS-6.

4. Typographical Error in the Amount of Depreciation Disallowed:
The Tribunal acknowledged a typographical mistake in its order where the amount of disallowed depreciation was mentioned as Rs. 2,06,747/- instead of Rs. 21,06,747/-. The Tribunal rectified this error, noting that the mistake originated from the assessee's own grounds of appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee, affirming that there was no merit in the claims for re-evaluation of depreciation disallowance. The Tribunal also clarified its limited jurisdiction under Section 254(2) and corrected the typographical error in the amount of disallowed depreciation.

← Previous Next →