9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 447 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny - Additional depreciation on cost of windmill allowed by AO - as per the PCIT, the amount of liquidated damages was directly relatable to the procurement of windmill and was required to be reduced from the actual cost of windmill as per provisions of section 43(1) and on the balance amount, the depreciation should have been claimed and allowed, however AO in a routine and perfunctory manner without proper examination and verification of the facts of the case has allowed excess claim of depreciation - HELD THAT - We find that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Saurashtra Cement 2010 (7) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT as well as the decision of Shree Digvijay Cement Co Ltd 1981 (8) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT supports the case of the assessee in treating the liquidated damages as capital receipts and not reducing the same from the cost of the windmill in terms of section 43(1) for the purposes of claim of depreciation and where such a claim is allowed by the Assessing officer, it cannot be held that there is erroneous application of provisions of law and legal position so emerging from reading of the aforesaid two decisions. During the course of assessment proceedings, we find that the matter was duly examined by the AO as evident from the notice issued u/s 143(2) wherein one of the reasons for selection of case has been stated to be claim of depreciation which was followed by specific queries raised on 11.10.2017, 7.11.2017, 10.11.2017 and 30.11.2017 and replies dated 10.11.2017 and 7.11.2017 submitted by the assessee providing the necessary information and documentation as well as the legal decisions referred supra in support of his claim. It is therefore not a case where the queries were raised and submissions were accepted on face value, rather the Assessing officer on receipt of initial submissions has examined the same and has thereafter raised further queries and sought submissions and once he was satisfied with the claim of the assessee, he has allowed the said claim - where the Assessing Officer has taken into consideration the factual and legal position and examined the matter at length and allowed the claim of the assessee, the opinion so formed by the Assessing Officer cannot be held as erroneous in nature - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) invocation of revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of whether liquidated damages received by the assessee should be treated as capital receipts and whether they should reduce the actual cost of the asset for depreciation purposes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) Invocation of Revisionary Powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Summary: The assessee challenged the order of the PCIT, who invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act to revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The PCIT's order was based on the claim that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to improper verification and application of law regarding the treatment of liquidated damages. Analysis: - The assessee argued that the AO had conducted a thorough examination and verification of the facts and documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings, and had correctly treated the liquidated damages as capital receipts based on judicial precedents. - The PCIT issued a show cause notice and subsequently passed an order u/s 263, canceling the AO's assessment order and directing a fresh assessment. - The assessee contended that the PCIT's order lacked proper application of mind and was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. - The assessee cited various judicial decisions to support the claim that revisionary powers under Section 263 can only be invoked when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Since the AO had made proper enquiries and the assessment order was in line with judicial precedents, it could not be termed erroneous. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted necessary enquiries and examinations, and had taken a judicious and reasonable view. Therefore, the order passed by the AO could not be held as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was deemed invalid. 2. Determination of Whether Liquidated Damages Received by the Assessee Should be Treated as Capital Receipts and Whether They Should Reduce the Actual Cost of the Asset for Depreciation Purposes: Summary: The core issue was whether the liquidated damages received by the assessee for delayed delivery of windmill machinery should be treated as capital receipts and whether these damages should reduce the actual cost of the asset for calculating depreciation. Analysis: - The assessee received ?1,20,00,000 as liquidated damages from M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. due to delayed delivery of windmill machinery. The AO treated this amount as a capital receipt and did not reduce it from the cost of the windmill for depreciation purposes. - The PCIT argued that as per Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, the liquidated damages should reduce the actual cost of the asset, and depreciation should be calculated on the reduced cost. - The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court decision in Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., which held that compensation for delay in delivery of machinery is a capital receipt and does not reduce the actual cost of the asset. - The tribunal reviewed the terms of the purchase order and the nature of the liquidated damages, concluding that the damages were compensation for delayed delivery and not related to the cost of the windmill. - The tribunal held that the AO’s treatment of the liquidated damages as capital receipts, without reducing the cost of the windmill, was in line with judicial precedents and thus not erroneous. Conclusion: The tribunal found that the AO had correctly treated the liquidated damages as capital receipts and had rightly not reduced the cost of the windmill for depreciation purposes. The tribunal upheld the AO's assessment order and set aside the PCIT's order under Section 263. Final Judgment: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the AO was sustained. The PCIT's order invoking Section 263 was set aside.
|
