2007 (3) TMI 183 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation Assessee company engaged the business of providing mobile telephone services, and didn t claim depreciation for the AY 2000-01 but the AO allowed depreciation holding the depreciation was mandatory Held the benefit of depreciation can t forced on assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has an option not to claim depreciation in any particular year?
2. Whether the Supreme Court's ruling in a specific case would be applicable to the assessment years after the omission of certain sections of the Income Tax Act and Rules?
3. Whether explanation 5 to Section 32 of the Income Tax Act should be read to have retrospective operation?

Analysis:

1. The appeal was against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01, where the Revenue contended that depreciation should be allowed even if the assessee did not claim it. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra Mills, held that depreciation cannot be forced upon the assessee if not claimed. The court affirmed this view, stating that the provision for claiming depreciation is for the benefit of the assessee, and it cannot be imposed against their will.

2. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 32 and 34 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the language of these provisions does not allow for ambiguity. The court highlighted that Section 32 allows depreciation deduction subject to Section 34, which mandates the furnishing of prescribed particulars. Even though certain rules were deleted, the court stressed that the return of income form itself requires particulars if depreciation is claimed. The court further reiterated that the benefit of claiming depreciation cannot be forced upon the assessee, as it is meant for their advantage.

3. The court referenced the Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra Mills, which established the principle that the claim of depreciation is a benefit for the assessee and should not be enforced if not desired by them. This principle was followed by the High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that depreciation cannot be imposed on the assessee against their will. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law to consider, and ruled in favor of the assessee, in line with the established legal principles.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirms that an assessee has the option not to claim depreciation, and it cannot be forced upon them, as the provision for claiming depreciation is for their benefit. The court's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, ultimately dismissing the appeal in favor of the assessee.