9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 816 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT assessee was not eligible to claim depreciation at the rate of 50% on a new motorcar purchased in accordance with sub-clause (VI) of clause III of Part A of the New Appendix I of the Act - Tribunal cancelled order u/s. 263 - HELD THAT - No error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. The issue raised in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Incometax vs. Arvind Jewellers 2002 (7) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . No interference is warranted.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263. 3. Allowability of depreciation on a new motorcar. 4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise assessment orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The High Court addressed the issue of whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in canceling the order passed under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal analyzed whether the assessment order by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and established that the order allowing depreciation at 50% on a new motorcar was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the order was not erroneous, as one of the plausible views was taken by the Assessing Officer. 2. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263: The High Court scrutinized the Commissioner's order under Section 263, which directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine the issue of depreciation on a car. The Court found that the Commissioner's order was baseless and incorrect as it alleged no enquiry by the Assessing Officer, despite evidence of an inquiry being conducted. The Court cited precedents to highlight that lack of enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry, and the Commissioner cannot impose his view without proper grounds. The Court concluded that the Commissioner did not have valid jurisdiction to revise the assessment order, and subsequently quashed the order and all related proceedings. 3. Allowability of depreciation on a new motorcar: The High Court examined the issue of allowing depreciation at 50% on a new motorcar purchased by the assessee. It was established that as per relevant notifications and precedents, the assessee was entitled to enhanced depreciation as the vehicle purchased was a light motor vehicle. The Court found the Assessing Officer's decision to allow depreciation at 50% to be a reasonable and correct view, in line with legal provisions and precedents. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner's order to reexamine the issue was not valid and sustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise assessment orders: The High Court referred to the jurisdictional aspects of the Commissioner of Income Tax in revising assessment orders under Section 263. It highlighted that the Commissioner's order lacked valid jurisdiction as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner cannot direct reexamination without proper grounds and evidence of inadequacy in the assessment process. The Court cited relevant judgments to support its conclusion that the Commissioner's order was unsustainable and against the mandate of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of valid jurisdiction, proper interpretation of legal provisions, and adherence to precedents in tax matters.
|
