9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e earlier 10 per cent. 3. The ITO held that the appellant seemed to be under the erroneous impression that the amendment was relating to a procedural aspect of law and that the said procedure would apply to all pending assessments. He pointed out that depreciation as envisaged in the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is a normal expenditure allowed for the wear and tear of machinery used for purposes of business and as such directly connected to the computation of income. He held that as depreciation allowable, mode of computation and rates at which it is to be allowed form an integral part of substantive law in section 32 of the Act itself the rules that prescribe the rates are only an extension of section 32 and as such it is very much a part of substantive law and any amendment thereto will have its effect only in the year in which the income is earned and not in the year in which it is computed and quantified for taxation purposes. He, therefore, held that the notification relied on by the appellant would come into effect only for the previous year commencing after 2-4-1983 and not for any previous year that ended before that date. He, therefore, rejected the assessee's claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel were inapplicable to the facts of the present case as in those cases the notifications specifically stated that the amendments made by the notification would come into force at once and not on any particular specified date. He also relied on the Kerala High Court decision mentioned in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He argued that the orders of the departmental authorities below on this point should be confirmed. 7. On a careful consideration of the submissions urged on both sides, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 15 per cent as claimed by it for the assessment year under appeal. The Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983 amending the Rules, were published in Notification No. S.O. 151(E), dated 28-2-1983. Rule 1(2) of these Rules specifically state that they shall come into force on 2-4-1983. In contrast to these Rules, when we look into Income-tax (Amendment) Rules, it would be noticed that three of the amendments came into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette, while the first amendment came into force from 1-4-1983. It is, therefore, clear that the intention while mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals) in his order. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the authorities below on this point and reject this ground. 10. The appellant next objects to the levy of interest of Rs. 1,31,844 under section 217(1)(a) of the Act. There is no discussion in the assessment order to show the reasons for the charging of this interest. When the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the action of the ITO. He held that in the present case it could not be denied that the assessee was covered by the provisions of section 209A of the Act, that any claims to the contrary that the latest completed assessment of 1979-80 did not result in any demand and that the return for the subsequent year did not result in any positive income, etc., would be of no avail and that the section merely talked of the current income being in excess of the limits set by section 208(2) of the Act when an automatic liability to file an estimate under section 209A surfaced. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, held that since the appellant did not file any estimate, then it would squarely come under section 217(1)(a) and that the levy of interest could not be avoided. This decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the charging of interest by the ITO against the assessee under section 217(1A) for that year and dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground. 12. Shri Seshagiri Rao, the learned departmental representative, submitted with reference to the language of sections 209A and 210 of the Act that there was really distinction in regard to the liability of assessee who are liable to pay advance tax under section 209(1) which applies to all assessees if their current income exceeds the minimum specified in section 208. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly interpreted the provisions of section 209 and 209(1)(a)(i) and 209(1)(d)(i) and that, therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be upheld. The argument of Shri Seshagiri Rao is that we should look into the provisions of section 209(1)(a)(i) and 209(1)(d)(i) only for the limited purpose of determining the liability of the assessee to file a statement under section 209A(1)(a) and that if once it held that the assessee was liable to file the statement and if he fails to comply with the provisions of section 209A, the liability to charging i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is also clear from the order of the Tribunal for the year 1980-81 that the return for the year 1980-81 was filed on 29-4-1981 admitting an income of Rs. 17,13,098 on which it paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 10,00,658. This returns as well as the payment of self-assessment tax for the year 1980-81 was far beyond the crucial date, namely, 15-9-1980 on which date we have to determine the assessee's liability to pay advance tax under section 209A(1)(a). The argument on behalf of the revenue is that we should ignore the words 'on the basis of which tax has been paid by the assessee under section 140A' appearing in section 209(1)(d)(i). We are unable to agree. It is not open to either the assessee or the department or the court to ignore these words used by the Parliament in this provision of law and construe the same as if these words do not appear in the said provision. Section 209(1)(d)(i) clearly postulates the filing of the return as well as the payment of self-assessment tax on the basis of that return by the assessee on the relevant date when the first instalment of advance tax falls due from the assessee. If there was no such return filed by the assessee and self-assessment tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
