9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 880 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - depreciation for vehicle and generator said to be installed on the vehicle - the assessee let out the vehicle along with the generator installed on the vehicle - Held that - Tthis Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer is expected to record his own reasons for the conclusion reached, in the assessment order. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer has not discussed anything in the assessment order and the facts are not coming out in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the material available on record, therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. - Decided against assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for higher depreciation on a vehicle mounted with film equipment. 2. Validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax's (CIT) exercise of power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) application of mind and recording of reasons in the assessment order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Higher Depreciation on Vehicle Mounted with Film Equipment: The assessee claimed a higher rate of depreciation (40%) on a vehicle mounted with film equipment and let out on hire. The CIT found that higher depreciation is applicable only to vehicles "running on hire," not to the equipment mounted on them. The assessee argued that similar claims were allowed in previous assessment years (1996-97 and 1990-91) and cited judgments supporting the view that when two interpretations are possible, the CIT should not exercise power under Section 263. The Departmental Representative (DR) countered that the AO did not examine the nature of the vehicle let out and argued that higher depreciation is only allowable for vehicles let out on hire, not for generators or equipment mounted on them. The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not discuss the depreciation of the vehicle and generator in the assessment order, indicating a lack of application of mind. 2. Validity of CIT's Exercise of Power Under Section 263: The CIT exercised power under Section 263, directing the AO to redo the assessment de novo after conducting necessary inquiries. The assessee contended that the AO had taken one of the possible views, and thus, CIT should not have exercised this power. However, the DR argued that the AO had not taken any view at all, as there was no discussion or reasoning in the assessment order. The Tribunal agreed with the DR, emphasizing that the AO must apply his mind and record reasons for his conclusions. The absence of such reasoning justified the CIT's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. 3. Adequacy of AO's Application of Mind and Recording of Reasons: The Tribunal highlighted that the proceedings before the AO are judicial in nature, requiring the AO to apply his mind to the material on record and provide a reasoned order. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents emphasizing the need for administrative authorities to record reasons to ensure fairness and transparency in decision-making. The AO's failure to discuss the depreciation issue or provide reasons for his conclusions indicated a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal stressed that each assessment year is separate and distinct, necessitating an independent examination of facts and recording of reasons by the AO. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel and other cases to underline the importance of recording reasons in quasi-judicial proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the AO had not applied his mind or recorded reasons in the assessment order, justifying the CIT's exercise of power under Section 263. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the lower authority was confirmed.
|
