2016 (11) TMI 1254 - HC - Income Tax

Genuine purchase of plants and equipments - depreciation claim - Held that - This Court cannot readily accept the contention of the assessee that a Biogas plant, which as per one of the Chartered Engineers was having a Replacement cost only at ₹ 2.53 lakhs, was purchased by the assessee-company at ₹ 50 lakhs and claim of 100% depreciation could be made thereon. Therefore, this burden of the assessee does not seem to have been appropriately discharged by the assessee in the present case. The very purpose of remand to the Assessing Authority and the exercise to be undertaken by the fact finding bodies, including appellate forums at the level of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT, the authorities prescribed under the provisions of the I.T.Act, 1961, would be frustrated, if this Court were to undertake this exercise in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the valuation of the plant and machineries purchased by the assessee-company and its right to claim depreciation thereon, the petitioner-company is relegated back before the first appellate authority namely, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It goes without saying that if the assessee-company leads appropriate evidence to support its claim even before the first appellate authority, who undoubtedly has the co-extensive powers as are available to the Assessing Authority under the Act, the said first appellate authority is expected not to shirk its responsibility, but decide the appeal on merits weighing such evidence and he is expected to record his own appropriate findings of fact, because multiple rounds of litigation and remands have already taken place in this case.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to assessment order for Assessment year 1994-95 raising a demand of ?1,95,56,185
2. Dispute over the purchase price of two Biogas Plants and one Flameless Furnace
3. Validity of depreciation claim based on the purchase value of the plants and equipments
4. Burden of proof on the assessee to establish correct market value of the purchased assets
5. Judicial review of the assessment order in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Issue 1: Challenge to assessment order for Assessment year 1994-95 raising a demand of ?1,95,56,185
The petitioner, aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged the demand raised for the Assessment year 1994-95. The petitioner contended that the demand had been reduced upon a rectification order, though the said rectification order was not presented before the Court.

Issue 2: Dispute over the purchase price of two Biogas Plants and one Flameless Furnace
The core issue revolved around the authenticity of the purchase price of two Biogas Plants and one Flameless Furnace bought by the petitioner during the relevant Assessment Year. The petitioner claimed 100% depreciation based on the purchase value of these assets, which were subsequently leased to other companies. The Assessing Authority questioned the inflated purchase price of the plants, relying on a valuation certificate by a Chartered Engineer, which estimated the value significantly lower than the claimed amount.

Issue 3: Validity of depreciation claim based on the purchase value of the plants and equipments
The Assessing Authority, after multiple rounds of litigation and remands, upheld the reduced valuation of the plants and equipments, affecting the depreciation claim made by the petitioner. The Court emphasized the burden on the assessee to prove the correct cost and market value of the assets for claiming depreciation under the Income Tax Act, highlighting the necessity for the petitioner to rebut the evidence presented by the Revenue.

Issue 4: Burden of proof on the assessee to establish correct market value of the purchased assets
The Court reiterated that the burden of proving the fair market value or cost of the purchased plant and machineries rested with the assessee. It emphasized that the Assessing Authority had the right to question inflated depreciation claims and that the burden of discharging this proof could not be evaded by the assessee.

Issue 5: Judicial review of the assessment order in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
While acknowledging the complexity of the case and the lapse of time, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the assessment order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the petitioner to appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to present evidence supporting their claim, emphasizing the importance of factual findings by the appellate authority.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of assessing the correct market value of assets for depreciation claims, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee. It highlights the role of appellate authorities in evaluating evidence and making factual determinations. The Court's decision underscores the importance of following due process and exhausting available appellate remedies in tax disputes, ultimately directing the petitioner to appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a comprehensive review of the case.