2013 (12) TMI 1363 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order u/s 263 - Revision by CIT - Erroneous and prejudicial to revenue order - Held that - Following assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05 - The deprecation claimed by the assessee has been accepted by the Assessing Officer - The items are in the same block and hence, depreciation cannot be disallowed this year - the Revenue cannot be allowed to change its view with regard to a fundamental aspect of a transaction taken in earlier assessment year unless it is able to demonstrate a change in circumstances in the subsequent assessment year - The respondent cannot under Sec.263 interfere on an issue which has been accepted by the Revenue for a number of years particularly when the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the assessment year 2006-07 takes the same view by terming it erroneous as the respondent is able to demonstrate a change in circumstances in the said assessment year - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.
2. Claim of higher rate of depreciation on commercial vehicles and electrical fittings.
3. Delay in filing the appeal.
4. Consideration of vehicles used for transportation.
5. Quashing of the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
6. Consistency in assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad set aside the assessment made by the Assessing Officer for both years, directing a re-examination of the claim of higher rate of depreciation on commercial vehicles and electrical fittings.

2. The issue of claiming higher rate of depreciation on commercial vehicles and electrical fittings was raised by the Commissioner. The assessee explained that vehicles were used for transportation and hired out, with hire charges received and freight charges paid. The Commissioner's order under section 263 was contested, arguing that the depreciation claim was genuine and not prejudicial to the Revenue's interests.

3. A delay in filing the appeal was noted, with the assessee submitting reasons for the delay, citing a misunderstanding regarding the necessity of filing an appeal against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the explanations provided.

4. The assessee argued that the vehicles were used for transportation and hire charges were netted against freight charges. This usage justified the claim of higher depreciation on vehicles. The Tribunal considered this argument in favor of the assessee.

5. The Tribunal referred to past assessment years where the depreciation claimed by the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Citing the principle of consistency in assessment proceedings, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's order under section 263 was incorrect and should be quashed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in such matters.

6. Relying on legal precedents and the principle of consistency, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's intervention under section 263 was unwarranted in this case. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the order was pronounced in their favor on 20.12.2013.

← Previous Next →