1991 (9) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ber --- In this appeal by the Revenue the issue involved pertains to the extent of additional depreciation adnmssible under section 32(1)(iiia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a resident company. The assessment year involved is 1983-84 for which the accounting year ended on 31-5-1982 which consisted of 14 months. In the original assessment completed under section 143(3) on 29-1-1986 t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation admissible is proportionately higher for a period of 14 months of the previous year by virtue of the proviso to rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held, upholding the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, that the issue is a debatable and there could be more than two views possible and therefore the order is not rectifiable by relying on the judgmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case there could be two views possible and in that event the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Volkart Bros. would be applicable. In reply the learned departmental representative stated that the proviso to rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 has been deleted from the assessment year 1985-86 and the proviso had no application. 4. I have duly considered the submissions and the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore wherever a previous year exceeds 12 completed months the proviso will take the place of rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In that case the depreciation calculated according to the modus operandi contained in the proviso to rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 would be the normal depreciation. Coming to section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 it provides for a further sum equal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the case of Volkart Bros. held that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there might be conceivably two opinions. The record shows that there were two conceived opinions and therefore it is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. Viewed from thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X