2018 (5) TMI 1685 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation at higher rate on rolls @ 80% - calculation of WDV - CIT(A) accepted the claim of depreciation on pro-rate basis - taking the written down value appearing in the depreciation schedule prepared for the purpose of Companies Act. - Held that - CIT(A) is not justified to accept the written down value of rolls determined by the assessee on proportionate basis, in view of the provision of sub-section (6) of section 43. As per section 43(6)(b), the WDV in case of assets acquired before the previous year is defined to mean the actual cost of the asset less all depreciation actually allowed to him - thus WDV is required to be determined as per section 43(6)(b) - matter is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication giving the assessee an opportunity to determine the opening W.D.V. of rolls in accordance with section 43(6)(b) - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal by revenue against deletion of depreciation claim at higher rate on rolls by Ld. CIT(A).

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal:
The revenue filed an appeal with a delay of 4 days, seeking condonation. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons provided, condoned the delay and proceeded with the appeal on its merits.

2. Initial assessment and disallowance:
The assessee, a company engaged in the iron and steel re-rolling mill business, claimed depreciation at a higher rate of 80% on rolls in the return of income. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed this claim, citing lack of evidence and the inclusion of rolls in the block of "plant and machinery" in previous years. The A.O. restricted the claim, resulting in a disallowance of ?1,07,65,892.

3. Decision by Ld. CIT(A):
The assessee challenged the disallowance before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, stating that the depreciation on rolls was wrongly claimed at 15% instead of 80% in earlier years. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to allow depreciation at the prescribed rate of 80% on the written down value of rolls.

4. Appeal before Tribunal:
The revenue appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and observed that the A.O. was justified in requiring the assessee to explain the determination of the opening W.D.V. of rolls. The Tribunal disagreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s acceptance of the basis adopted by the assessee for determining the W.D.V. The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directed the A.O. to decide the matter afresh in accordance with section 43(6)(b).

5. Final decision:
The Tribunal treated the appeal of the revenue as allowed for statistical purposes, setting aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter to the A.O. for fresh consideration in determining the opening W.D.V. of rolls in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the correct application of depreciation rules and the need for accurate determination of the written down value of assets, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory provisions in tax assessments.