1973 (7) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - petitioner is a coffee planter. For the assessment year 1967-68 he was allowed initial and ordinary depreciation allowance on a sprinkler equipment - When depreciation is allowed on machinery acquired under hire purchase agreement whether the depreciation can be withdrawn by a rectification on the ground that the assessee was not the owner - On this issue two views were possible so rectification orders were quashed

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation allowance on sprinkler equipment by the Income-tax Officer.
2. Interpretation of ownership of equipment under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957.
3. Application of section 37 for rectification of assessment orders.
4. Comparison with relevant case laws regarding hire-purchase agreements and ownership.

Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka heard two writ petitions by a common assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, concerning the disallowance of depreciation allowance on sprinkler equipment by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner, a coffee planter, was granted depreciation allowance for the equipment but the Income-tax Officer rectified the assessment orders, claiming that the Coffee Board owned the equipment and it was hired to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this decision under article 226 of the Constitution. Section 5 of the Act allows depreciation on assets owned by the assessee for deriving agricultural income. The court noted that ownership is crucial for claiming depreciation under the Act, similar to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court emphasized that the question of ownership requires detailed analysis and cannot be rectified under section 37 merely based on a hire-purchase agreement.

In analyzing relevant case laws, the court referred to Shamsher Ali Abdul Hussain v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Srianghacharyulu v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which dealt with depreciation claims on assets purchased through hire purchase agreements. The court highlighted the differing interpretations in these cases regarding the nature of hire-purchase agreements and ownership. The court also considered the decision in K. L. Johar & Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, emphasizing the need to examine all relevant documents and circumstances beyond the hire-purchase agreement to determine ownership. The court concluded that the question of ownership of the sprinkler equipment obtained through the Coffee Board did not warrant rectification under section 37, as it required a thorough examination beyond a hire-purchase agreement.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the rectification orders for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The court highlighted that the respondent did not have the authority to rectify the orders based on the ownership issue alone, as it involved complex legal considerations beyond a mere hire-purchase agreement. The court's decision was based on the lack of an apparent error on the record empowering the respondent to make rectifications. The petitioner succeeded in the writ petitions, with no costs awarded.