2020 (2) TMI 723 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Lease equalization reserve disallowed on the reasoning that it is not a prescribed expenditure u/s 30 to 37 - HELD THAT - As evident from the order, the Hon ble bench has merely followed the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in earlier years and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication to the file of Ld.AO on identical lines. It is quite discernible that the order of Ld. first appellate authority, on the issue, has been set aside and Ld. AO has been directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with directions issued by Tribunal in AYs 1994-95 to 1997-98. It is also observed that the binding decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. 2012 (2) TMI 120 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Prakash Leasing Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 755 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT was much available at the time of aforesaid adjudication by Tribunal 2014 (12) TMI 881 - ITAT MUMBAI and Hon ble Supreme Court has approved the same 2018 (4) TMI 1472 - SUPREME COURT subsequent to adjudication by Tribunal. The bench while passing order for AY 1999-2000, in his wisdom, thought fit to follow the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in earlier years and restored the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication with a view to enable the revenue to take consistent stand in the matter. Therefore, the plea as urged by the assessee in the application, in this regard, could not be accepted. Hence, finding no mistake apparent from record as envisaged by the provisions of Sec. 254(2), we decline to interfere in the order, on this point. Claim of depreciation made on leased assets - It is quite evident that the claim made by the assessee has been accepted and the depreciation of leased assets have been allowed since the lease transactions have been accepted to be genuine by the Tribunal in earlier years. We find that no elaborate finding has been rendered by the bench on the factual aspect whether the transactions were in the nature of finance lease or operating lease. The main issue was whether the transactions were genuine in nature on non-genuine in nature. Upon perusal of CIT(A) order for this year, as placed on record, would also show that no such factual findings were rendered by learned first appellate authority in its order. The depreciation was allowed by following earlier years orders and by observing that the appellant were the owners of leased assets and they have been used for the business purpose also. Therefore, the point urged by the assessee could not be accepted since there is no mistake apparent from record in terms of Sec. 254(2) which would warrant interference in the order. The application merely seeks further factual finding in the matter and seek mere improvement in the order, which is impermissible. Resultantly, we dismiss the application. Amount of lease equalization while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT - As assessee submit that the revenue challenged the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the amount of lease equalization while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB. The said matter has also been restored back by the Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in view of the fact that similar issue, in assessee s appeal, was restored back to the file of Ld. AO. The assessee has raised similar arguments and submitted that since the issue is now covered in assessee s favor by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court, the directions given in the order may be set-aside and the ground raised by the department may be dismissed. However, the plea urged by the assessee would stand dismissed since we have dismissed similar plea in above and declined to interfere in the order of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of orders passed by Tribunal in various appeals for different assessment years.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the deduction of lease equalization reserve for Assessment Year (AY) 1999-2000. The assessee claimed deduction based on Accounting Standard-19 (AS-19) and judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the issue afresh in line with earlier years' orders. The assessee argued that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court post the Tribunal's decision. However, the Tribunal upheld its earlier order, citing consistency and lack of apparent mistake.

2. The second issue involves depreciation on leased assets for AY 1999-2000. The Tribunal had allowed depreciation based on genuine lease transactions, following earlier years' decisions. The assessee sought a factual finding on lease type but was denied as no mistake was found in the order, leading to dismissal of the application.

3. The third issue concerns the challenge to the deletion of lease equalization amount while computing Book Profits under section 115JB for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Tribunal had restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee argued in line with the previous issue but faced dismissal due to lack of evident error, resulting in the rejection of the application.

4. Overall, multiple applications seeking rectification were dismissed by the Tribunal, maintaining its earlier decisions and citing consistency in approach across different assessment years. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of any apparent mistake in the orders, leading to the rejection of the applications.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by the parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the ultimate dismissal of the rectification applications.