Bombay High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rhone Poulenc Ltd. on 14 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2000]246ITR699(BOM)
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, A.P. Shah
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dated February 1, 1999.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows : The respondent-company is a pharmaceutical company. It took over the assets of the Indian branch of May and Baker Limited, U. K. on January 1, 1975. In the original returns for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the respondent did not claim depreciation on the assets of the Indian branch. However, for the assessment year 1978-79, it claimed depreciation on the original cost of the assets which were taken over by it and this depreciation was claimed on the original cost and not on the written down value. Subsequently, revised returns were filed for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, whereby the respondent claimed depreciation on the original cost of the assets. After filing of the revised returns for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the U. K. company entered into a settlement with the Central Board of Direct Taxes on August 30, 1980, which was communicated to the respondent only on September 30, 1983. At this stage, it may be mentioned that before the settlement and even thereafter it was quite debatable as to whether the depreciation was actually allowed to the U. K. company. One of the points also debatable was the applicability of Rule 10. However, if one goes into the terms of the settlement, it is clear that finally in order to buy peace an ad-hoc figure of underassessment was arrived at and it was accepted by the assessee. On the basis of this ad hoc figure of underassessment the Department now contends that the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars and that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income. The Tribunal has found, on the facts, that under the above circumstances, it cannot be stated that the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. As stated herein-above, in the original returns filed on July 27, 1977, the assessee did not claim any depreciation which was subsequently claimed on the basis of the revised returns filed on August 30, 1978. The settlement was arrived at on the basis of the ad hoc arrangement. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no concealment of income and merely because the assessee debated the issue for a long time, it cannot be stated that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or of furnishing inaccurate particulars. This is a pure finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises on the facts of the present case. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.