2014 (9) TMI 198 - AT - Income Tax

Miscellaneous application Rectification of mistake u/s 154 Held that - As such there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order as alleged by the assessee relying upon Steel Containers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax 1974 (11) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA High Court - though the powers of the Tribunal may be said to be limited to the subject matter of the appeal before it but the Tribunal is competent to pass such orders on appeal as it thinks fit - there is nothing in the Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of the questions raised before the departmental authority - all questions whether of law or of facts, which related to the assessment of the assessee might be raised before the Tribunal - the Tribunal can uphold the disallowance under another section - the Tribunal has upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the basis that the AO has already allowed the depreciation in respect of total assets which the assessee has acquired as per the assets shown by the assessee in the balance sheet as on 04/11/2004 (post acquisition) and, no extra depreciation over and above these assets is allowable to the assessee - The basis of disallowance by the AO may be different but still such disallowance can be upheld by the Tribunal on the basis that since the AO has allowed depreciation on the total assets acquired by the assessee company post acquisition, no more depreciation is allowable to the assessee over and above the depreciation already allowed by the AO - there is no apparent mistake in the decision of the Tribunal the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged Apparent Mistakes in Tribunal Order
2. Depreciation on Goodwill
3. Tribunal's Consideration of Balance Sheet and Depreciation Charts
4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Apparent Mistakes in Tribunal Order:
The assessee filed Miscellaneous Applications alleging apparent mistakes in the Tribunal's order dated 28/02/2014 concerning the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The primary mistake alleged was the Tribunal's misunderstanding of the cost of fixed assets and the depreciation calculated on them. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the value of shares amounting to Rs. 7.43 Crores allotted to the shareholders of JKSL, which enhanced the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes.

2. Depreciation on Goodwill:
The controversy centered on whether the assessee's claim for depreciation on Rs. 7.43 Crores, representing the face value of shares allotted and accounted for as 'goodwill,' was admissible. The Tribunal's order did not explicitly address this issue, leading the assessee to claim that the Revenue's appeal was not fully decided. The Tribunal noted that the depreciation charts did not include 'goodwill' as an asset on which depreciation was claimed. Consequently, the Tribunal found no basis for allowing depreciation on goodwill when it was not claimed in the depreciation chart.

3. Tribunal's Consideration of Balance Sheet and Depreciation Charts:
The Tribunal required the assessee to submit a copy of the Balance Sheet as of 04/11/2004, showing pre-acquisition and post-acquisition figures. The Tribunal observed that the maximum depreciation allowable was on assets valued at Rs. 567.62 Crores, as shown in the balance sheet. The revised depreciation chart showed a higher value, which the Tribunal found unjustifiable. The Tribunal concluded that the extra depreciation allowed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable, as the depreciation claimed by the assessee did not include goodwill in the revised depreciation chart.

4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
The assessee cited several judicial pronouncements to support their claim of apparent mistakes in the Tribunal's order. However, the Tribunal found these judgments inapplicable to the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that no apparent mistake was pointed out in the Tribunal's observations or findings. The Tribunal also referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, which supported the Tribunal's authority to pass orders on appeal as it deemed fit, including upholding disallowances on different grounds.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in its order dated 28/02/2014. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's allowance of depreciation on the total assets acquired post-acquisition, as shown in the balance sheet, and dismissed the extra depreciation claimed by the assessee. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee were dismissed.