Calcutta High Court
Principal Commisioner Of Income Tax vs Wires & Fabriks (Sa) Limited on 14 February, 2017
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose, Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
GA NO.635 OF 2016
WITH
ITAT NO.108 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME-TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA
Versus
WIRES & FABRIKS (SA) LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 14th February, 2017.
MR.P.DUDHERIA,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
MR.R.BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
The Court : The dispute involved in this appeal relates to allowing additional depreciation in respect of wind mills to the assessee, though the assessee did not claim such additional depreciation either in the return or by way of a revised return. The fact that such additional depreciation is available in respect of wind mills is not in dispute before us. There is also no factual dispute otherwise on entitlement of the assessee to claim such additional depreciation. Such claim was made by the assessee in revised computation of income filed before the completion of the assessment proceeding. The Assessing Officer did not 2 entertain such claim but on appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim and the order of the Commissioner has been confirmed by the Tribunal.
Mr.Dudheria, learned Advocate for the appellant argued before us that the assessee could not make such claim otherwise than by way of a revised return. He relied on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323. The Tribunal considered this submission and came to the following finding :-
"We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on record. We find from the arguments of the ld.DR that the assessee had made a claim for additional depreciation on wind mill in the revised computation of income statement filed before completion of assessment proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee had missed the bus in the opportunity provided to him by the statute by filing the revised return within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. However, that does not prevent the assessee from making its legitimate claims and its doors are not completely shut. The decision in the case of Goetze India Limited clearly states that consideration of the valid claim of the assessee other than by way of a valid return can be entertained by the appellate authorities and more so the ITAT. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kanpur Coal 3 Syndicate reported in 53 ITR 225(SC) had held that the powers of CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the AO; that the First Appellate Authority has wider powers, in that "he can do what the ITO can do and can also direct him to do what he failed to do." The question of limitation on the ld. AO would have no relevance in view of the wider powers of the First Appellate Authority. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Raja Rani Gulati Vs. CIT reported in (2012) 346 ITR 543 (All)."
In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.4
We did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no substantial question of law involved in this case. We, accordingly, dismiss the application and the appeal.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb.