2009 (11) TMI 995 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms CIT(A) and ITAT decisions on sale price & depreciation, emphasizing income accrual and proper treatment.

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Subrata Dutta Choudhary

The High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT regarding both the undeclared sale price of machinery and the depreciation on office equipment ... Accrual of receipts - Undeclared sale price of machinery - Correct assessment year - ITAT has affirmed the order of the CIT(A) that as per the terms of the contract, only 85% of the amount was to be received by the Assessee till the supply of machinery in the assessment year under consideration and the remaining 15% amount was payable to the Assessee, after issuance of provisional acceptance certificate and other requirements, therefore, the Assessee had not acquired the right to receive 15 per cent of the price till the conditions of contract were fulfilled - HELD THAT:- We find that the Assessee had not received right only on 85 per cent of amount which can be enforced in court of law. No debt came into existence in respect of balance amount of 15 per cent in respect of which the Assessee must have acquired a right to receive the payment. The balance amount will accrue to Assessee on completion of contract as per its terms and conditions. The contention of the Revenue that on matching principle the amount of expenditure incurred in respect of the machinery work has been debited in the Profit & Loss Account will not be of much help on the ground that in the subsequent year the entire amount has been subject to tax without any debiting of the expenditure in profit and loss account. Thus the amount in respect of the machinery work is not assessable in the year under consideration. Assessee's case is also covered by the decision of Ignifluid Boilers (India) Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition. Excess depreciation claimed on office equipment and electric installation - allowing of depreciation on office equipment and electric installation like transformer or control panels at the rate of 25 per cent as against 15 per cent as allowed by the AO - HELD THAT:- No ground to interfere in the aforesaid findings, as a finding of fact has been recorded by the learned ITAT. The transformer and control panels cannot be taken as part of office furniture. The Fax machine and CCTV systems, which are being used in the business of the Assessee, have rightly been given depreciation at the rate of 25 percent, by treating them as part and parcel of plant and machinery and these items cannot be treated as part of office furniture. No merit in the instant appeal and in our opinion no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. Issues:1. Undeclared sale price of machinery - Addition made by Assessing Officer2. Excess depreciation claimed on office equipment and electric installation - Disallowance by Assessing OfficerUndeclared sale price of machinery:The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the ITAT's order upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of the undeclared sale price of machinery. The Assessee had a contract with specific payment terms, where only 85% of the contract price was due in the assessment year under consideration. The remaining 15% was payable upon certain conditions being met in subsequent years. The Assessing Officer added the 15% amount to the Assessee's income for the year, arguing that under the mercantile system of accounting, the entire sale price should be reflected in the Profit & Loss Account. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT held that since the Assessee had not acquired the right to receive the 15% amount during the assessment year, it should not be considered as income. The ITAT, relying on Supreme Court decisions, emphasized that income accrues when the Assessee acquires the right to receive it, and since the 15% amount was accounted for in subsequent years, it should not be assessed in the year under consideration.Excess depreciation claimed on office equipment and electric installation:The second issue pertained to the Assessee's claim of depreciation at 25% on office equipment and electric installation, which was challenged by the Assessing Officer who allowed depreciation at 15%. The Assessee treated these items as part of plant and machinery, justifying the higher depreciation rate. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation at 25%, citing a relevant court decision. The ITAT upheld this decision, stating that the items in question were integral to the Assessee's business operations and should be considered part of plant and machinery, warranting a higher depreciation rate. The ITAT found no fault in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and decision. The High Court concurred, noting that the items in question, such as transformers and control panels, were essential for business use and should be depreciated at 25%. The Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding no substantial question of law to consider.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT regarding both the undeclared sale price of machinery and the depreciation on office equipment and electric installation. The judgment emphasized the principles of income accrual and proper depreciation treatment based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.