9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1817 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT assessee could not have claimed depreciation on plant and machinery given on lease and since the assessee has not reduced the lease value of plant and machinery from block of assets, therefore, the assessee has claimed excess depreciation - HELD THAT - Not only specific query was raised by the AO but also detailed reply has been made on the basis of which the AO has framed the assessment and allowed the depreciation on the leased asset . It cannot be held that in the light of this record, the AO has not applied his mind or there is any lack of inquiry made by the AO on the impugned issue. When, the AO has applied his mind on the given facts and material on record which has been specifically required by him, then it cannot be held that the AO has passed the assessment order without any application of mind. Once, a particular view has been taken by the AO which is a possible view in facts and in law, then unless the Ld. PCIT points out that, such view is not tenable either on law or on facts, then such an assessment order cannot be cancelled within the scope and ambit of section u/s 263. See MAX INDIA LTD. 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT and MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT . AO has applied his mind and taken a view therefore, such an order of assessment cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue‟, unless it is shown that the view of the AO, itself is untenable in law and on facts. Here the ld.PCIT has not even specified as to what kind on enquiry is to be conducted by the AO. Thus, such an assessment order cannot be cancelled u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Entitlement to claim depreciation on leased assets. 3. Examination of the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The appellant challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263, which set aside the AO's order dated 20.03.2013. The appellant argued that the CIT erred in holding the AO's order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The appellant contended that the AO had considered the facts and correctly allowed depreciation as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CIT's view that the leasing transaction was similar to those of leasing banks and financial institutions was also contested, emphasizing that the appellant was an industrial company and not a normal leasing company. The appellant maintained that the assets given on lease were owned by it, and the lease rent income was offered as business income. The CIT's failure to appreciate these facts and the legality of the assessment order was highlighted. 2. Entitlement to claim depreciation on leased assets: The brief facts noted in the impugned order revealed that the assessee leased its Polymer Plant to a lessee under a financial lease agreement. The CIT observed that under the Income Tax Act, depreciation is allowed to the owner of the assets used for business or profession, and in the case of leased assets, ownership is determined by the contract. The CIT concluded that the assessee could not claim depreciation on the leased plant and machinery and noted an excess depreciation claim of ?3,22,55,807/-. The assessee, however, argued that the assets were held for more than five years, and the lease agreement clearly stated that the assets remained the property of the lessor during the lease period. The confirmation from the lessee that they did not claim depreciation further supported the appellant's claim. 3. Examination of the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO): The appellant provided detailed submissions during the assessment proceedings, explaining the lease agreement and the treatment of leased assets in the books of accounts as per Accounting Standard-19. The AO had raised specific queries regarding the claim of depreciation, and the appellant responded with comprehensive details and supporting documents, including a copy of the lease agreement and the CBDT Circular No. 2/2001. The AO, after examining these details, accepted the appellant's claim of depreciation. The CIT, however, rejected the appellant's contentions without specifying the lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal observed that the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view based on the facts and law, and the CIT did not point out any specific inquiry that should have been conducted by the AO. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and applied his mind before allowing the depreciation claim. The CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside, as the assessment order could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
