2014 (1) TMI 871 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of depreciation on plant and machinery u/s 32 of the Act Held that - There is no benefit which the assessee derived from its sister-concern as a quid pro quo for allowing the user of such asset - The mere facts that the assessee utilized its funds or obtained a loan in its own name for acquiring the asset and also showed it in its books of account, would not change the consequence of the non- granting of depreciation in any manner when the essential fact prevails that the asset was, in fact, utilized by the sister concern for its own business purpose - It was candidly admitted that the return for the last year was processed u/s 143(1) in a summary manner and the case was not taken up for scrutiny assessment - the assessee is not entitled to depreciation as per law, the principle of consistency in the given circumstances cannot be followed as obviously there can be no estoppel against the provisions of the Act Decided against Assessee. Addition made on account of difference in valuation of closing stock Held that - The invoices showing the sale of defective goods at a lower price in succeeding year were not placed before the AO - when the assessee is following Cost or market price whichever is less as method for valuation, then the assessee cannot be compelled to value such stock at the cost price, if the market value of such stock is less - it is the market value which is required to be considered for determining the overall profit - it would be in the fitness of things if the order on this issue is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of AO Decided partly in favour of Asessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of depreciation on plant and machinery.
2. Addition on account of difference in valuation of closing stock of defective and rejected goods.

Issue 1: Denial of Depreciation on Plant and Machinery:
The appeal was against the denial of depreciation amounting to Rs. 47,16,988 on machinery used by the assessee's sister concern. The machinery was purchased by the assessee but installed at the sister concern's premises. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed the depreciation as the machinery was not used by the assessee for its business purpose. The tribunal analyzed the facts and legal precedents. It was established that once an asset is part of a block of assets and acquired for business purposes, depreciation must be allowed. However, if the asset is acquired for a different entity's business purpose, depreciation cannot be claimed. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between 'actual use' and 'deemed use' of assets. In this case, as the machinery was used by the sister concern for its business and not by the assessee, depreciation was rightly denied. The tribunal upheld the decision, highlighting the need to discourage arrangements aimed at tax reduction by shifting depreciation claims between entities.

Issue 2: Difference in Valuation of Closing Stock of Defective Goods:
The second ground of appeal concerned the addition of Rs. 9,60,000 due to a variance in the valuation of defective stock. The assessee valued undergarments at Rs. 8.33 per piece, while the Assessing Officer valued them at Rs. 15 per piece based on survey findings. The tribunal noted that the assessee followed the 'Cost or market price, whichever is less' method for stock valuation. The burden was on the assessee to prove the lower market value of the defective stock. The tribunal observed that the market value should be considered for profit determination if it is less than the cost price. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the defective stock was sold at a lower price in the subsequent year, as claimed by the assessee. If proven, no addition should be sustained; otherwise, the issue should be decided as per law. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the assessment on this issue and remitting it back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the denial of depreciation on machinery not used for the assessee's business purpose and directed a reevaluation of the valuation of defective stock to ensure compliance with the 'Cost or market price' method. The judgment provided clarity on the principles governing depreciation claims and stock valuation, emphasizing the need for proper substantiation and adherence to legal requirements in tax assessments.