2021 (7) TMI 121 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - inadequate enquiry on depreciation claimed on assets leased under finance lease transactions - HELD THAT - There was some controversy regarding the invoices issued by the manufacturer whether they were issued in the name of the lessee or the lessor. For the view we have taken above, we deem it unnecessary to go into the said question as it is of no consequence to our final opinion on the main issue. From a perusal of the lease agreement and other related factors, as discussed above, we are satisfied of the assessee s ownership of the trucks in question. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the lessor i.e. the assessee is the owner of the vehicles. As the owner, it used the assets in the course of its business, satisfying both requirements of Section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the trucks, which were leased out. Claim of the assessee for a higher rate of depreciation, the import of the same term purposes of business , used in the second proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act gains significance - the interpretation of these words would not be any different from that which we ascribed to them earlier, under Section 32 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfills even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation, and hence is entitled to the same. In the present case, with regard to the ownership, inspection, repossession of the equipment on default, delivery of equipment on expiry of lease and ownership at the end of the lease period, are similar and therefore, it is the assessee alone who can claim depreciation, as rightly held by the assessing officer. The clauses relating to lease have already been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s ICDS Ltd., 2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT and it has been held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of depreciation on leased assets under Section 32 of the Act of 1961 and therefore, the substantial question of law involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the decision above as well as the judgment delivered by the Division of this Court in Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (12) TMI 306 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement of the assessee to claim depreciation on leased assets under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order under Section 263:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to revise the assessment order on the grounds that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue due to an incorrect depreciation claim on leased assets. The Principal Commissioner argued that the assessing officer did not conduct adequate inquiries into the ownership of the assets, which is crucial for determining the eligibility for depreciation under Section 32.

The assessee contended that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. They argued that the assessing officer had conducted a thorough inquiry, examined all relevant documents, and allowed the depreciation claim based on the Circular No. 2/2001 issued by the CBDT and the judgment in the case of M/s ICDS Ltd. v. CIT.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner, holding that the assessing officer had conducted a detailed inquiry and that the order was not erroneous. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the ITAT erred in its judgment.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the assessing officer had conducted a thorough inquiry and that the order was not erroneous. The Court emphasized that merely because the Principal Commissioner had a different view did not make the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

2. Entitlement to Depreciation on Leased Assets:
The core issue was whether the assessee, as a lessor, was entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Principal Commissioner argued that the assessee was not the owner of the assets and therefore not eligible for depreciation.

The assessee argued that they were entitled to claim depreciation as the lessor, citing the CBDT Circular No. 2/2001, which clarified that there is no difference between operating lease and finance lease for the purpose of claiming depreciation. They also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s ICDS Ltd. v. CIT, which held that the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets.

The High Court, after examining the clauses of the lease agreement and the relevant statutory provisions, held that the assessee was indeed the owner of the leased assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation under Section 32. The Court noted that the clauses in the lease agreement were similar to those in the ICDS case, where the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the lessor's entitlement to depreciation.

The Court also referred to the Division Bench judgment in Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which supported the assessee's claim for depreciation on leased assets. The Court concluded that the substantial question of law was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by the decisions in the ICDS and Hewlett Packard cases.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the ITAT's decision. The Court ruled that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. No orders as to costs were made.

← Previous Next →