9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Entitlement of the assessee to claim depreciation on the increased rupee cost of foreign exchange loans used for purchasing ships. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Commissioner's Jurisdiction under Section 263: The primary contention raised by the assessee was that since an appeal had been filed against the assessment order to the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessment order had merged with the appellate order. Therefore, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 263. The assessee relied on the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Mandsaur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Dwarkadas & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO. However, it was noted that the assessee's claim for depreciation on the increased rupee cost of foreign exchange loans was not the subject-matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal referred to the ruling in CIT v. R.S. Banwarilal and other precedents, concluding that the doctrine of merger did not preclude the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner was valid and proper. 2. Entitlement to Depreciation on Increased Rupee Cost: The assessee had purchased ships from foreign suppliers by raising loans in foreign currencies, repayable by instalments. Due to fluctuations in the exchange rate, the liability in terms of Indian rupees increased, and the assessee claimed depreciation on this increased liability. The Commissioner rejected the claim, arguing that the increase in liability due to exchange rate fluctuations did not enhance the value of the asset for depreciation purposes. He allowed the claim only for the instalments payable during the year of account. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 43A of the Act, which allows for adjustments in the actual cost of an asset due to changes in exchange rates after acquisition. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim fell within the terms of section 43A, as there was an increase in liability due to exchange rate fluctuations after the acquisition of the ships. The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, which required accounting for all accrued liabilities, including those due to exchange rate fluctuations. The Commissioner's approach of limiting the claim to instalments payable during the year was found unjustified, as it ignored the full accrued liability. The Tribunal also addressed the departmental representative's contention that the method of accounting was irrelevant for determining the actual cost of the asset. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the accrued liability, as per the mercantile system, represented the actual cost of the asset. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the increased liability of Rs. 68,88,221, and set aside the Commissioner's order, restoring the ITO's original assessment. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
|
