9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, this claim which was not reflected in the Annual Report given to shareholders and Company Law Board is clearly an afterthought with an intention to avail greater benefit. Moreover, the names of purchase invoices differ from what the assessee claims to have entitled for 100% depreciation. So, the same is rejected. Tribunal on the issue of depreciation, after going through the orders of the lower authorities was of the view that the view taken by the CIT (Appeals) is correct on facts. On the issue, as regards item No.4 (1), the lower authorities have given a finding that machinery installed by the assessee are not covered under Item III (3)(B) of the table of depreciation rates. Similarly, as regards the rest of the items, a finding has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating the expenditure on replacement of plant and machinery as capital in nature? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in not allowing depreciation at 100% on the specified items? 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as hereunder :- The appellant is in the business of manufacture of automobile components. In respect of replacement of plant and machinery, which is a part of the continuous manufacturing system, the appellant claimed a sum of ₹ 71,07,022/= as revenue expenditure and furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving equipments and listed in Appendix I of Rule 5. This claim was not made while filing return of income, nor while filing details. Suddenly, the assessee company comes in March and claims that this equipments is also eligible for 100% depreciation. The assessee has no convincing support to sustain its claim. Many of the items are entitled to normal depreciation only, which was claimed and allowed. Hence, this claim which was not reflected in the Annual Report given to shareholders and Company Law Board is clearly an afterthought with an intention to avail greater benefit. Moreover, the names of purchase invoices differ from what the assessee claims to have entitled for 100% depreciation. So, the same is rejected. 5. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven that they are not covered under item III (3)(E) of the said table. 4.2 The learned Departmental Representative submitted that these findings of the lower authorities are on firm footing and have not been controverted by the assessee by any cogent explanation. 4.3 Upon a careful consideration of the issue, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue has taken a correct view. Hence, we uphold his orders. 7. It has been time and again held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities on factual issues should not be reappreciated on appeal, unless it is shown to be ex facie perverse. The Supreme Court in Ghisalal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt. This Court may interfere where on proved facts wrong inferences of law are shown to have been drawn. It needs to be emphasised that this Court is not a regular court of appeal to which every judgment of the High Court in a criminal case may be brought up for scrutinising its correctness. It is only in a rare or exceptional case where there is some manifest illegality or grave or serious irregularity that the Court would interfere with such findings of fact. In this regard reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in Duli Chand v. Delhi Admn., Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of Gujarat, Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, etc. 9. Keeping the above position of law in mind, even a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the appellate authorities for coming to the right conclusion herein. Thus, with no details available as stated in the case of CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills reported in [2007] 294 ITR 328 (SC), the decision of the Tribunal cannot be held as based on any material data necessary for considering the claim one way or the other. Hence, the proper course herein is to set aside the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for de novo consideration. 18. Keeping in view the law declared by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills reported in [2007] 294 ITR 328 (SC) and in the case of CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd. reported in [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
