9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Higher rate of depreciation in reassessment proceedings. 2. Relief under section 154 for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Higher Rate of Depreciation in Reassessment Proceedings: The primary issue was whether the assessee could claim a higher rate of depreciation in reassessment proceedings, which was neither claimed nor allowed in the original assessment. The court examined whether it was permissible for the Income-tax Officer to make a reassessment that would reduce the total income below the figure determined in the original assessment. The court concluded that reassessment proceedings are initiated for the benefit of the Revenue, and it is impermissible for the assessee to claim deductions not claimed in the original assessment. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 was cited, which held that reassessment proceedings are not an opportunity for the assessee to seek a review of concluded items unrelated to the escapement of income. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly concluded that the assessee could not claim higher depreciation in reassessment proceedings if it would reduce the total income below the originally assessed figure. The court answered the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee. 2. Relief Under Section 154 for the Assessment Years 1974-75 and 1976-77: The second issue was whether there was a mistake apparent from the record that warranted rectification under section 154 of the Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer had rejected the assessee's application for enhanced depreciation on the grounds that there was no apparent mistake in the records. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this view. However, the court noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had found, during the reassessment appeal, that the assessee was entitled to a higher rate of depreciation. This finding indicated that there were indeed mistakes in the original assessment orders. The Supreme Court's decisions in Maharana Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 and L. Hirday Narain v. ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 were cited, which emphasized that section 154's scope includes all proceedings on which the assessment order is based. The court held that the Tribunal should have considered the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, which established the assessee's entitlement to higher depreciation, and directed the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistakes. The court concluded that the Tribunal's failure to recognize the apparent mistakes in the original assessment orders was erroneous. The court answered the second question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, directing the Tribunal to determine the correct rate of depreciation and instruct the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistakes under section 154 of the Act. Conclusion: The court answered the first question in the negative and against the assessee, affirming that higher depreciation could not be claimed in reassessment proceedings if it would reduce the total income below the originally assessed figure. For the second question, the court answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, directing the Tribunal to rectify the mistakes in the original assessment orders for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77. The assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 500.
|
