9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding revision of orders. 2. Validity of CIT's order on the exercise of powers under section 263. 3. Merits of the case concerning the depreciation allowable on earthmoving machinery. Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263: The case involved an appeal by a partnership concern challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was whether the CIT's revision of the Assessing Officer's order, specifically regarding the depreciation on earthmoving machinery, was within the permissible time limit. The appellant argued that the CIT's revision, dated 25-2-1992, was barred by limitation as it concerned an order dated 6-3-1987, which was beyond the two-year limit from 31-3-1988. However, the Senior Departmental Representative opposed this, citing the amendment to section 263 effective from 1-6-1988, granting CIT full powers of revision on parts not appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Validity of CIT's order under section 263: The Assessing Officer's order, specifically on the allowance of depreciation, was not subject to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The CIT's power to revise this part concerning depreciation was limited to two years from the end of the financial year in which the regular assessment was made. The CIT initiated proceedings in September 1991 and made the order on 25-2-1992, which was deemed beyond the permitted time limit. The order giving effect to the Commissioner (Appeals) did not require a re-examination of the depreciation claim, indicating finality on this aspect for the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the orders of revision for both assessment years were quashed as barred by limitation. Merits of the case concerning depreciation on earthmoving machinery: Regarding the depreciation on earthmoving machinery used in the construction of a hotel, the appellant argued that the machinery was intended for excavation and moving earth for the foundation of a multi-storied hotel building, thus qualifying for depreciation. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the machinery's use for excavation, even if leading to the construction of a hotel, did not restrict its entitlement to depreciation. As a result, the order of the CIT was set aside in favor of the appellant firm against the revenue. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the jurisdiction of the CIT, the validity of the revision order under section 263, and the merits of the case concerning the depreciation on earthmoving machinery.
|
