2009 (7) TMI 679 - HC - Income Tax

Interest- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the interest of Rs. 15,41,888 charged under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the advance tax estimate filed by the assessee were grossly incorrect and did not reflect true and correct income of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in admitting the claim of the assessee for depreciation in higher rate relying upon the assessee s explanation that machinery comes into contact with corrosive chemicals without appreciating the fact that only corrosive ingredient coming into contact with machinery is sulphur dioxide but its percentage is well within tolerable limits? Held that- (1) that the machinery installed by the assessee came into contract with a corrosive chemical and therefore, it was entitled for higher depreciation. (2) that the explanation given by the assessee as to the filing of the estimated income was genuine and the Tribunal had accepted it. Hence the Tribunal had rightly deleted the interest under section 216.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of deleting interest charged under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Admissibility of higher rate of depreciation for machinery in contact with corrosive chemicals.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal before the Allahabad High Court concerned the deletion of interest of Rs. 15,41,888 charged under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent-assessee had initially filed estimates of income for the assessment year 1978-79, with subsequent revisions. The assessment was made on a total sum of Rs. 798.25 lakhs, on which interest under section 216 was charged. The Tribunal had deleted the interest, citing the deletion of penalty under section 273 on similar grounds. The High Court noted that interest under section 216 is leviable only when the assessee underestimates income consciously. In this case, the explanation provided by the assessee for filing the estimated income was deemed genuine by the Tribunal. As there was no evidence of deliberate underestimation by the assessee, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the interest.

Issue 2:
The second issue involved the claim of the assessee for higher depreciation rate due to machinery coming into contact with corrosive chemicals. The Tribunal had accepted the plea of the assessee based on this ground. The High Court referenced a Supreme Court case which held that a higher rate of depreciation is admissible when machinery interacts with corrosive chemicals. In the present case, as the machinery installed by the assessee did come into contact with such chemicals, the Court concluded that the assessee was entitled to the higher depreciation rate. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the higher rate of depreciation.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondent-assessee on both issues. The Court upheld the deletion of interest under section 216 and affirmed the entitlement of the assessee to a higher rate of depreciation for machinery in contact with corrosive chemicals. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the matter.