Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 723 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - Lease equalization reserve disallowed on the reasoning that it is not a prescribed expenditure u/s 30 to 37 - HELD THAT:- As evident from the order, the Hon’ble bench has merely followed the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in earlier years and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication to the file of Ld.AO on identical lines. It is quite discernible that the order of Ld. first appellate authority, on the issue, has been set aside and Ld. AO has been directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with directions issued by Tribunal in AYs 1994-95 to 1997-98. It is also observed that the binding decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2012 (2) TMI 120 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Prakash Leasing Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 755 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was much available at the time of aforesaid adjudication by Tribunal [2014 (12) TMI 881 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the same [2018 (4) TMI 1472 - SUPREME COURT] subsequent to adjudication by Tribunal. The bench while passing order for AY 1999-2000, in his wisdom, thought fit to follow the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in earlier years and restored the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication with a view to enable the revenue to take consistent stand in the matter. Therefore, the plea as urged by the assessee in the application, in this regard, could not be accepted. Hence, finding no mistake apparent from record as envisaged by the provisions of Sec. 254(2), we decline to interfere in the order, on this point. Claim of depreciation made on leased assets - It is quite evident that the claim made by the assessee has been accepted and the depreciation of leased assets have been allowed since the lease transactions have been accepted to be genuine by the Tribunal in earlier years. We find that no elaborate finding has been rendered by the bench on the factual aspect whether the transactions were in the nature of finance lease or operating lease. The main issue was whether the transactions were genuine in nature on non-genuine in nature. Upon perusal of CIT(A) order for this year, as placed on record, would also show that no such factual findings were rendered by learned first appellate authority in its order. The depreciation was allowed by following earlier years’ orders and by observing that the appellant were the owners of leased assets and they have been used for the business purpose also. Therefore, the point urged by the assessee could not be accepted since there is no mistake apparent from record in terms of Sec. 254(2) which would warrant interference in the order. The application merely seeks further factual finding in the matter and seek mere improvement in the order, which is impermissible. Resultantly, we dismiss the application. Amount of lease equalization while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- As assessee submit that the revenue challenged the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the amount of lease equalization while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB. The said matter has also been restored back by the Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in view of the fact that similar issue, in assessee’s appeal, was restored back to the file of Ld. AO. The assessee has raised similar arguments and submitted that since the issue is now covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the directions given in the order may be set-aside and the ground raised by the department may be dismissed. However, the plea urged by the assessee would stand dismissed since we have dismissed similar plea in above and declined to interfere in the order of the Tribunal.
|