R LAKSHMI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is challenging Ext. P14 order where under the Commissioner of Income tax has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of the assessing officer declining to rectify income tax assessments applied for by the petitioner under S.154 of the Income Tax Act for the years 1992-93 to 1996-97. Assessments for these years were originally completed under S.143(1A) of the Act granting depreciation based on the written down value declared by the petitioner in the returns. However, assessments for two preceding years namely 1990-1991 and 1991-92 were under contest before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Income tax Appellate Tribunal respectively wherein the issue involved was written down value of some items, such as plant, machinery, furniture, etc. for the purpose of depreciation. Consequent upon orders of these two authorities, written down value after granting depreciation for 1990-91 and 1992-93 and later years had to be modified. As a consequence of change in written down value of eligible items for depreciation based on the orders of the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) for the two preceding years, petitioner applied for rectification of mistake in the subsequent assessment for grant of depreciation, which was declined by the Officer on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record to rectify assessments under S.154 of the IT Act The commissioner agreed with the assessing officer and declined the relief in revision petitions on the ground that assessments completed based on returns cannot be rectified

(2.) I have heard senior counsel Sri. P. Balachandran appearing for the petitioner - assessee and standing counsel Sri. George K George appearing for the Income tax Department and I have gone through the impugned orders. Written down value under S.43(6) of the Income tax Act in the case of assets acquired before the previous year is the actual cost of assessee less depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act, Therefore depreciation has to be granted for any assessment year on the written down value after taking into account depreciation actually allowed in the preceding year. Since there is a change in the written down value, consequent upon the order of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority for the immediately preceding years, necessarily depreciation for the year 1992-93 and subsequent years has to be recomputed based on orders of the appellate authority for the preceding year. The findings of the authorities below that there cannot be mistake in respect of written down value after filing of the returns is therefore incorrect. The mistake in the return, so far as written down value is concerned is a consequence of the order in appeal. There was a mistake in the written down value of the original items for depreciation for the year 1992-93 and subsequent years. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside. The assessing officer is directed to modify the assessments and grant depreciation based on written down value consequent upon the order of the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) and Tribunal for earlier years.