2014 (4) TMI 850 - HC - Income Tax

Waiver of Interest u/s 234B of the Act Entitlement to claim unabsorbed depreciation Held that - The decision in Garden Silk Weaving Factory Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax 1991 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court followed - Depreciation of a firm cannot be allocated to the benefit of partners personally and it shall revert back to the firm, the assessees should have been careful enough to file their returns without claiming such unabsorbed depreciation - though 1989-90 assessment of the firm did allocate such unabsorbed depreciation, law of the land declared such allocation as bad - the returns ought to have been filed showing the correct income - the advance tax was not paid, therefore, automatically they are liable to pay interest chargeable u/s 234B of the Act Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment on assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 regarding unabsorbed depreciation set off and interest under Section 234B.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge by the Revenue against a judgment on assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 related to unabsorbed depreciation set off and interest under Section 234B. The dispute arose from the allocation of unabsorbed depreciation to partners of a firm, which was later rectified following a Supreme Court judgment. The Assessing Officer disallowed the set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the partners, leading to the imposition of interest under Section 234B. The partners sought waiver of interest, arguing they were entitled to the depreciation benefit. The rejection of waiver claims led to a legal battle resulting in the judgment under review.

The Revenue contended that any waiver of interest should adhere to circulars issued under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The partners claimed that the circular from 1996 was ignored by the Department, affecting their case. The judgment highlighted the conditions outlined in the 1996 circular for interest waiver, emphasizing the need for compliance by the assessees. However, the Single Judge's decision did not address these conditions, leading to a different perspective on the matter.

The Single Judge's ruling was based on the partners' lack of fault in seeking the depreciation benefit following the Supreme Court's decision. The judgment analyzed the case from two angles: the conditions in the 1996 circular and the factual scenario. It was observed that the partners' case did not align with the conditions specified in the circular, rendering their argument unsustainable. Additionally, the partners had filed returns after the Supreme Court's decision, indicating their awareness of the legal position on depreciation allocation.

Ultimately, the Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment, upholding the Department's stance on disallowing the depreciation set off and imposing interest under Section 234B. The partners were deemed liable for interest due to their failure to comply with the law post the Supreme Court's ruling. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal precedents and filing accurate returns to avoid financial implications such as interest charges under tax laws.