TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) the learned Tribunal is right in allowing the application of the assessee under section 154 of the Income-tax Act ?" The assessee is a bus operator. While completing the assessment, depreciation at the rate of 30% was allowed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessment was for the year 1980-81. The assessee filed an application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act and claimed depreciation at the rate of 40%. The Income-tax Officer did not allow it. The assessee claimed 40% depreciation on the basis of the amendment made to the Income-tax Rules by the Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1980. True, the effect of the amendment was that depreciation at the rate of 40% was allowable on motor vehicles instead of at 30%. The amended ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere completed after that date. Further, the Tribunal found that the intention of the amendment can never be a matter of debate so far as the income-tax authorities were concerned and that the issue cannot, therefore, be said to be a debatable one, that relief to the assessee cannot be denied when the assessee has applied for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to 40% depreciation on the stage carriages owned by the assessee. Now, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, the Tribunal has referred the questions of law referred to in paragraph 1. We heard counsel for both sides. The assessment year in question is 1980-81 and the law governing the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y made after the amendments came into force. This position has been made clear by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 and Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262. Approving CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) and Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC), the Supreme Court observed in Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921, 923, that "It is a cardinal principle of the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication". Any deviation from this cardinal principle and a claim made deviating from this fundamen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) Ltd. [1979] 119 ITR 830 (Mad), has no application in this case. In that case, the Madras High Court held that (headnote) "The well-settled proposition that the law as on the 1st day of April of any assessment year should govern the assessment for that year is not absolute but is subject to qualification by any express provision or necessary implication. A provision may be retrospectively brought into the statute book even subsequent to 1st April so as to affect any assessment year. Where any provision expressly states the date from which it is to be effective, it must be given effect to accordingly". It has to be noted that what was considered in this case is an amendment in the statute itself. In this case, it has to be noted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
