9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alaysian assets for the assessment years under reference, namely, 1970-71 to 1972-73, was correct and reasonable ?" The brief facts leading to the reference are the following : The assessee is a banking company. Its head office and branches in India were nationalised on July 18, 1969. The assessee had also branches at Mallacca, Kuala Lampur, Klang, Ipoh and Penang in Malaysia. For the assessment years, namely, 1970-71 to 1972-73, the assessee claimed depreciation in respect of its assets in its foreign branches. The particulars of the working of the written down value in respect of the assets in those places were not available at the time of assessment. According to the Income-tax Officer, in terms of section 34 of the Act, the deprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f at Rs. 2,85,212 on the basis of the particulars furnished before him, and, on the basis of the formula propounded by him, directed the Income-tax Officer to verify the correctness of the claim and allow deduction of the correct amount of depreciation. The Revenue, aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, filed appeals before the Tribunal, and contended that in the absence of the written down value of the assets in the Malaysian branches, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong in giving directions as mentioned above which go contrary to the terms of section 34 of the Act. It appears, before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel contended that the assessee had given particulars that the business was a comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the special circumstances of this case, namely, nationalisation of the head office and branches of the assessee-banking company in India, and in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court referred to by the Tribunal, namely, Guzdar Kajora Coal Mines Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 599. We derive support for our above conclusion from a decision of this court, namely, Indian Bank Limited v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 282. One of the questions dealt with by the learned judges in that case was similar to the one dealt with in this case. There also, the written down value of the assets of the branches of the Indian Bank in Malaysia, came up for consideration. Ramanujam J., speaking for the Bench, held as follows (at page 291) : " Coming to the question as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, in this case, the assessee is not in a position to furnish the particulars. But having regard to the fact that the Malaysian assets have not been valued separately, depreciation can be given on a proportionate basis. Having given depreciation on the Malaysian assets on a proportionate basis, the assessing authority is not justified in withdrawing the benefit merely on the basis that item-wise particulars have not been furnished. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on this aspect of the case. Thus, the second question referred in Tax Cases Nos. 857 and 858 of 1979, is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. " In the result, we answer the question in the aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
