2021 (2) TMI 756 - HC - Income Tax

Block assessment - whether block assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 is barred by limitation? - excess depreciation is to be brought to tax in the block assessment made under chapter XIV-B - HELD THAT - Matter was remitted to tribunal for fresh consideration. The finding of the tribunal that the issue with regard to limitation cannot be adjudicated as the same would be beyond the purview of the order of remand cannot but be said to be perverse. The order passed by the tribunal was set aside in its entirety by this court. Therefore, it was open for the assessee to raise the plea of limitation. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Since, the tribunal has not adjudicated the issue with regard to limitation, the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the tribunal insofar as it pertains to finding with regard to the issue of limitation is hereby quashed and the tribunal is directed to decide the issue of limitation with regard to the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer for the block assessment years 1986-86 to 1996-97.

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for block assessment order.
2. Validity of excess depreciation brought to tax.
3. Invocation of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act.
4. Adoption of asset value for depreciation.
5. Impact of asset value on lease rentals.

Issue 1: Limitation period for block assessment order:
The appeal concerned the block assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97. The Assessing Officer passed the block assessment order on 31.05.1997, beyond the one-year limitation period from the end of the month in which the last search authorization was executed. The tribunal initially held the assessment was within the limitation period. However, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The High Court found the tribunal's refusal to adjudicate the limitation issue post-remand as erroneous. Quoting legal precedents, the High Court emphasized that the quashing of an order results in restoring the original position. Therefore, the High Court quashed the tribunal's decision and directed it to decide the limitation issue concerning the block assessment order.

Issue 2: Validity of excess depreciation brought to tax:
The Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation claimed by the assessee on assets purchased at a higher value than the written down value in the seller's books. The tribunal initially ruled in favor of the assessee, but the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration based on amended provisions. The tribunal upheld the excess depreciation taxability under Chapter XIVB of the Act. The High Court, focusing on the limitation issue, did not delve into the validity of this aspect due to the remand on the limitation issue.

Issue 3: Invocation of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act:
The tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's invocation of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act, requiring the adoption of asset value at ?2,00,00,000 for depreciation instead of ?1,00,00,000. The High Court did not address this issue in detail due to the primary focus on the limitation issue post-remand.

Issue 4: Adoption of asset value for depreciation:
The Assessing Officer adopted an asset value of ?1,00,00,000 for depreciation, differing from the actual value of ?3,62,52,209. The tribunal revised this to ?2,00,00,000 for depreciation purposes. However, the High Court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue due to the limitation issue's prominence post-remand.

Issue 5: Impact of asset value on lease rentals:
The High Court did not elaborate on the potential impact of adopting a lower asset value on lease rentals, which could lead to double taxation. This issue was not extensively discussed due to the primary focus on the limitation issue post-remand.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily addressed the limitation issue concerning the block assessment order for the specified years, directing the tribunal to reevaluate this aspect. Other substantive questions related to excess depreciation, asset valuation for depreciation, and its impact on lease rentals were not extensively discussed due to the limitation issue's precedence post-remand.