9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Assessing Officer can make an "adjustment" under section 143(1)(a) in respect of the assessee's claim to adjust brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income from short-term capital gain under section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Adjustment under Section 143(1)(a): The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in making an "adjustment" under section 143(1)(a) concerning the assessee's claim to adjust brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income from short-term capital gain under section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a return showing a carried forward loss of Rs. 2,34,720 due to adjustments on account of brought forward losses, which the AO added back in the intimation under section 143(1)(a), resulting in a total income of Rs. 40,90,518. The AO's stance was that brought forward losses could not be set off against income under the head "Capital gains." 2. Application under Section 154 and Revised Return: The assessee filed an application under section 154 and a revised return, bifurcating the business losses into Business Loss and Unabsorbed Depreciation, pleading that set off be allowed in respect of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. The AO, referring to the amended provisions of section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996, opined that income under the head capital gains could not be equated with the profits and gains of any business or profession against which a set-off could be allowed in respect of unabsorbed depreciation. 3. CIT(A) Decision: On further appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's view, stating that the claim made was patently wrong and inadmissible, and therefore, the "adjustment" under section 143(1)(a) was in order. 4. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal examined the rival submissions and perused the orders passed by the tax authorities. It agreed with the numerous decisions cited by the ld. counsel that the scope of "adjustment" under section 143(1)(a) is very limited and debatable issues of law cannot be raked up since these necessarily have to be discussed in proceedings under section 143(3) after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department should not capitalize on a mistake on the part of the assessee either to disclose an item in a particular manner or to quote a wrong provision of the Act since it is incumbent on the part of the Department not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. 5. Relevant Provisions of Law: The Tribunal referred to section 32(2) effective 1-4-1997, which mentions that unabsorbed depreciation allowance, which cannot be wholly set off during a particular assessment year, is to be carried forward to the following assessment year and set off against the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by an assessee. It also referred to section 50, which deals with the transfer of depreciable assets and the treatment to be given to the surplus arising therefrom, stating that the excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets. 6. Section 41(2) Consideration: The Tribunal noted that section 41(2), which was reintroduced w.e.f. 1-4-1998, should have been considered by the AO since the assessment year under consideration was 1998-99. The surplus arising under section 41(2) is necessarily to be treated as income from business or profession. The Tribunal opined that the AO could not have made an "adjustment" under section 143(1)(a) without considering the provisions of section 41(2). 7. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the matter in hand was one where two opinions could be expressed, and there could be a degree of debate. Therefore, the "adjustment" carried out by the AO was outside the pale of section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the tax authorities, opining that the AO could not have made an "adjustment" under section 143(1)(a) in respect of the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward against the surplus arising on the sale of depreciable assets. Final Judgment: The appeal was allowed, and the orders passed by the tax authorities were set aside.
|
