1990 (11) TMI 210 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Against Rectification Order, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Carrying On Business, Mistake Apparent From Record

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over depreciation rate for Boring machine and Rock Drill machine DTH Air Rig.
2. Validity of rectification order reducing depreciation from 20% to 10%.
3. Allowance of extra shift allowance on the two machines.
4. Competency of the appeals filed by the assessee before CIT(Appeals).
5. Interpretation of relevant entries for depreciation allowance.
6. Impact of letters dated 11-2-1986 on the case.

Analysis:
1. The dispute arose regarding the depreciation rate claimed by the assessee for Boring machine and Rock Drill machine DTH Air Rig. The ITO initially allowed depreciation at 20%, but later proposed to reduce it to 10%, leading to a disagreement.

2. The ITO, under section 154, reduced the depreciation to 10% based on a revised depreciation chart sent to the assessee. The assessee, while initially agreeing to the proposed rectification, later contested it, claiming it was illegal and against its interest.

3. The issue of extra shift allowance on the two machines was raised during the appeals before CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) directed the ITO to allow extra shift allowance, emphasizing that once allowed, it could not be withdrawn without a valid reason.

4. The competency of the appeals filed by the assessee before CIT(Appeals) was challenged by the Departmental Representative, citing a decision by the Kerala High Court. However, the assessee argued that the rectification was not valid, relying on various legal precedents to support their position.

5. The interpretation of relevant entries for depreciation allowance was crucial. Since the assessee was not classified as a Mineral Oil concern or Mines and quarries concern, the general rate of 10% was applicable. The CIT(Appeals) directed the ITO to allow extra shift allowance based on this interpretation.

6. The impact of the letters dated 11-2-1986, in which the assessee seemingly agreed to the reduced depreciation, was analyzed. The Tribunal held that even if the letters were willingly given, they could not be acted upon if contrary to law. The decision of Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. was distinguished, and the CIT(Appeals) was deemed justified in entertaining the appeals.

In conclusion, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, affirming the decision of the CIT(Appeals) to allow extra shift allowance and rejecting the reduction of depreciation to 10%. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the appeals filed by the assessee and emphasized the importance of adherence to legal provisions in such matters.