2008 (8) TMI 183 - SC - Income Tax

Assessee claims that despite suspension of operation assessee was still entitled to claim depreciation on the ground of passive user. This aspect has not been gone into by the High Court on dismissing the asssessee s appeal under Section 260A. Therefore SC set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of depreciation of plant and machinery under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowability of depreciation during a period of business suspension.
3. Failure of the High Court to consider the aspect of passive user for claiming depreciation.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue concerning the interpretation of depreciation of plant and machinery under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court had to determine whether the Tribunal was correct in disallowing depreciation because the assessee did not manufacture goods during the previous year. The operation of the assessee's business was suspended during that period. The assessee contended that despite the suspension, depreciation could be claimed based on passive user, a point overlooked by the High Court in its dismissal of the appeal under Section 260A. The High Court's failure to provide any reasons on this crucial aspect led the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment and remit the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the process and dispose of the matter within six months.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should consider the aspect of passive user and provide a reasoned decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of a thorough analysis of all relevant factors before making a determination on the allowability of depreciation during a period of business suspension. The Supreme Court's decision to remit the matter for fresh consideration underscored the significance of proper legal reasoning and examination of all pertinent arguments in tax matters to ensure a just outcome. The appeals were ultimately disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution of the issue at hand.