1965 (4) TMI 15 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the depreciation allowance should be computed in respect of the 10/16th share in the factory on the basis of the original cost to the larger joint family or on the basis of the valuation at which the assessee took over the factory? Held that - Depreciation allowance should be computed on the basis of the valuation at which the assessee took over the assets. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the depreciation allowance should be computed on the basis of the original cost to the larger joint family or on the basis of the valuation at which the assessee took over the assets.
2. The interpretation of "original cost" and "written down value" under Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. The effect of partition under Hindu law on the computation of depreciation allowance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Basis for Depreciation Allowance Calculation:
The central issue in this case was whether the depreciation allowance for the sugar factory should be computed based on the original cost to the larger joint family or the valuation at which the appellant took over the factory. The High Court had held that the depreciation should be computed on the original cost to the larger joint family. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that the depreciation allowance should be computed on the basis of the valuation at which the assessee took over the assets. It was noted that Govindram purchased the factory in an auction for Rs. 34 lakhs, and this amount should be considered the cost to the appellant.

2. Interpretation of "Original Cost" and "Written Down Value":
Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, allows for depreciation on the original cost of the asset to the assessee. Section 10(5) defines "written down value" as the actual cost to the assessee in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, and the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation allowed in the case of assets acquired before the previous year. The court clarified that the original cost of the 10/16th share in the factory to the appellant should be the amount at which it was purchased in the auction, i.e., Rs. 34 lakhs, as opposed to the original cost to the larger joint family.

3. Effect of Partition under Hindu Law:
The court discussed the concept of partition under Hindu law, noting that partition involves the ascertainment of individual shares from joint family property, transforming joint enjoyment into enjoyment in severalty. The court emphasized that even though partition may not involve a transfer in the strict legal sense, it does confer an absolute title to a specific property to the divided member. Therefore, the cost of the property to the member at the date of partition would be the value given to it for the purpose of allotment, provided it was real.

Separate Judgments:

Subba Rao and Sikri JJ.:
Subba Rao J., delivering the judgment for himself and Sikri J., emphasized that the cost of an asset to a divided member must be its cost at the time of partition, whether mentioned in the partition deed or ascertained otherwise. The court rejected the view that the original cost to the larger joint family should be the basis for depreciation, stating that the valuation at the time of partition should be considered.

Shah J.:
Shah J. delivered a separate judgment, agreeing in part with the majority but providing a nuanced view. He held that for the 10/16th share, the depreciation allowance should be computed on the original cost to the joint family, but for the 6/16th share, it should be based on the Rs. 12,75,000 paid by Govindram. He emphasized that Govindram did not purchase his own share at the valuation put by him at the private auction but merely purchased the share of the other sharer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the depreciation allowance should be computed on the basis of the valuation at which the assessee took over the assets. The order of the High Court was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed with costs.