1980 (9) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recomputing the written down value of 'service lines' for the period up to March 31, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) u/s 154 in respect of the assessment order for the assessment year 1962-63.
3. Determination of 'actual cost' of the service lines for depreciation and development rebate under the Income-tax Act, 1961, versus the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

Summary:

Issue 1: Recomputing the Written Down Value of 'Service Lines'
The Tribunal held that the ITO was not justified in recomputing the written down value of the 'service lines' for the period up to March 31, 1961, and that the written down value as on March 31, 1961, should be taken as the written down value as on April 1, 1961. However, the court found this conclusion incorrect. The court clarified that for the assessment year 1962-63, the written down value had to be determined under the new I.T. Act of 1961, which came into force on April 1, 1962. The "actual cost" had to be determined u/s 43(1) of the new Act, deducting contributions received from consumers. Thus, the ITO was right in his determination.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the ITO u/s 154
The Tribunal was correct in holding that the ITO had no jurisdiction u/s 154 to revise the original assessment order dated November 30, 1966, because it had merged with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) dated January 23, 1968. The doctrine of merger applied, and the AAC's silence on the depreciation and development rebate meant confirmation of the ITO's decision. Therefore, the ITO lost jurisdiction to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record u/s 154 after the AAC's order.

Issue 3: Determination of 'Actual Cost'
The Tribunal rightly held that the 'actual cost' of the service lines should be determined under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The court reasoned that since the assessee sought relief under the I.T. Act, the provisions of the I.T. Act governed the determination of depreciation and development rebate, not the Electricity Acts.

Conclusion:
The court answered the first and third questions in favor of the department and the second question in favor of the assessee. No order as to costs was made.