2015 (4) TMI 511 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal against order of dis allowance of Depreciation on the windmill - Commissioned within and before due date - Certificate issued by statutory authority - Held that - The Commissioner may have undertaken an exercise and as alleged by Mr. Toprani but what the Tribunal found from the Commissioner's conclusion that the certificates which were relied upon by the Commissioner and purportedly of site inspection do not remove the essential discrepancy nor does it take care of the fact that the windmill was commissioned on 31st March, 2006. The certificate issued by the other entity M/s. Suzlon (pertinently this was a joint-venture project) indicate that the material supplied to the assessee against the invoice number set out in the Tribunal's order at paragraph 10 dated 27th March, 2006 was dispatched from their works at Puducherry. In such circumstances, it was physically impossible for the consignment to cover a distance of 800 kilometers and reach a site which was earlier proposed in Nandurbar District and later on in Sangli District. Therefore, the perversity in the Commissioner's order enabled the Tribunal to interfere with the findings and uphold that of the Assessing Officer. We do not see any substantial question of law emerging from an exercise of this nature undertaken by the Tribunal. This is not a case where any expert opinion was produced or relied upon and that expert was not made available for cross-examination. We do not see how, therefore, a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. 1999 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court would assist the assessee. That judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts.- Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:

1. Interpretation of factual conclusions by the Tribunal in relation to windmill project commissioning date.
2. Discrepancies in the claim of depreciation on the windmill project.
3. Evaluation of certificates and evidence provided by the assessee.
4. Perversity in the Commissioner's order and Tribunal's interference.
5. Absence of expert opinion and its impact on the case.
6. Application of relevant legal precedent from Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. case.

Issue 1: Interpretation of factual conclusions by the Tribunal

The appeal questioned the Tribunal's interference with the factual conclusion regarding the commissioning date of the windmill project. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's reliance on a site inspection to determine the commissioning date was justified, and the Tribunal's interference was impermissible. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the Assessing Officer had sufficient evidence to conclude that the windmill project was not commissioned as claimed by the assessee.

Issue 2: Discrepancies in the claim of depreciation

The assessee claimed 50% depreciation on the windmill project, asserting it was commissioned within the relevant period. However, discrepancies arose during the assessment process. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the transport of windmill components to the claimed site, leading to the disallowance of the depreciation claim. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on the evidence available, highlighting the inconsistencies in the project's execution and location.

Issue 3: Evaluation of certificates and evidence

The Commissioner relied on certificates and site inspection reports to support the assessee's claim. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the documents provided, questioning the authenticity of the commissioning date and project details. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's assessment, emphasizing the importance of verifiable evidence in such claims.

Issue 4: Perversity in the Commissioner's order and Tribunal's interference

The Tribunal intervened due to perceived perversity in the Commissioner's order, which failed to address the discrepancies in the project execution and location. The High Court supported the Tribunal's decision, noting that the certificates and evidence presented did not adequately substantiate the claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 5: Absence of expert opinion and its impact

The absence of expert opinion, coupled with the inability to cross-examine any expert, was highlighted. The High Court clarified that the reliance on a specific legal precedent was not applicable in this case, as expert opinion was not a pivotal factor in the dispute.

Issue 6: Application of legal precedent

The High Court concluded that the case did not present any substantial legal questions warranting a different outcome. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the lack of merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision, which aligned with the Assessing Officer's findings regarding the windmill project's commissioning and depreciation claim.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the court's reasoning behind its decision.