2018 (5) TMI 39 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on depreciation on leased transactions - CIT(A) held that the depreciations claim over the assets which were purchased from third parties by the assessee company and entered into sale and lease back agreement with different parties are eligible to claim depreciation and directed AO to verify each such claim and by satisfaction that the supplier and lessee should not be one at the same time. Held that - In our considered view this direction of the Ld.CIT(A) will not serve any purpose as the Assessing officer in this case though set-aside to him twice to examine the transaction in detail he miserably failed to examine the transactions and therefore there is no point again directing the Assessing Officer to examine the transactions or part of the transactions for the purpose of allowing the claim of the assessee. Therefore, to that extent the observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are reversed and we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is eligible to claim depreciation from sale and lease back assets in respect of the transactions other than Nath Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. To put an end to the litigation in this case as the matter is very old and relates to the A.Ys. 1996-97, we sustain the order of the CIT(A) partly as indicated above and the claim of the assessee is directed to be allowed as per the observations of the Ld.CIT(A) without any further verification by the Assessing Officer.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets.
2. Verification and examination of lease transactions.
3. Applicability of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Mid-East Portfolio Management Ltd. v. DCIT.
4. Assessment and treatment of lease transactions as financial transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets:
The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of depreciation on leased assets claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that this matter had been previously litigated and remanded for reconsideration multiple times. Initially, the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the issue in light of the decision in Mid-East Portfolio Management Ltd. v. DCIT, which was not adequately addressed by the AO in subsequent assessments. The AO continued to disallow the depreciation, treating the lease transactions as financial transactions rather than genuine operational leases, without proper examination of the lease agreements.

2. Verification and Examination of Lease Transactions:
The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to examine the lease agreements to determine whether the transactions were genuine leases or financial transactions. Despite clear directions from the Tribunal in previous rounds, the AO failed to scrutinize the agreements and merely reiterated the disallowance of depreciation. The Tribunal criticized this approach, noting the AO's failure to follow its instructions and properly apply the guidelines from the Special Bench decision.

3. Applicability of the Decision of the Special Bench in the Case of Mid-East Portfolio Management Ltd. v. DCIT:
The Tribunal had previously instructed the AO to consider the decision in Mid-East Portfolio Management Ltd. v. DCIT, which dealt with the nature of lease transactions and their treatment for tax purposes. The AO, however, did not adequately discuss or apply the principles from this decision in the reassessment. The Tribunal reiterated that the AO should have evaluated the transactions in light of this precedent to ascertain their true nature.

4. Assessment and Treatment of Lease Transactions as Financial Transactions:
The AO treated all lease transactions as financial transactions, excluding the principal element and taxing only the interest portion. This was done without a thorough examination of the agreements or the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal found this approach flawed, as it did not align with its instructions to assess the transactions based on their substance and the applicable legal precedents. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to properly examine the transactions warranted the deletion of the addition on this ground alone.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO had failed to properly examine the lease transactions and apply the relevant legal principles, despite clear directions. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on leased assets, except for transactions involving Nath Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., where the supplier and lessee were the same entity. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s direction for further verification by the AO, considering the AO's repeated failure to conduct a proper examination. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, directing that the assessee's claim for depreciation be allowed without further verification.