Tribunal sets aside Commissioner's order, directs reassessment based on correct depreciation values.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order in a case concerning the assessment year 2010-11, directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate depreciation based on the written down value from the 2009-10 assessment. The appeal by Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, pending further assessment adjustments. The decision emphasizes aligning cost valuation with relevant assessment years and considering pending appellate decisions for accurate tax assessment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) on secondhand windmill purchase.
2. Determination of actual cost for depreciation calculation.
3. Discrepancy in cost valuation of secondhand machinery.
4. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner's decision.
5. Cross-objection by assessee on cost determination.

Analysis:
1. The appeal and cross-objection in this case concern the order related to the assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue challenges the non-application of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) on a secondhand windmill purchase by the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee disputes the Commissioner's valuation of the secondhand machinery at Rs. 1.50 crores instead of the purchase cost of Rs. 2.36 crores.

2. The Assessing Officer initially determined the cost of the windmill at Rs. 43,28,388 due to the seller's prior depreciation claim. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the application of Explanation 3, stating the assessee's motive was not to reduce tax liability. However, the Commissioner set the windmill's cost at Rs. 1.50 crores, differing from the original purchase cost.

3. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Explanation 3 to section 43(1), which pertains to determining the actual cost for depreciation purposes. The provision specifies that the actual cost is relevant at the time of purchase or when depreciation is first claimed. In this case, as the windmill was purchased in 2009 and depreciation claimed in 2009-10, the actual cost determination should align with those years.

4. Given the ongoing dispute regarding the depreciation claim in the assessment year 2009-10, both parties acknowledged that the determination of actual cost for the current year is premature. The Departmental representative concurred that the focus should be on the written down value from the prior assessment year. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision is deemed premature and subject to the outcome of the 2009-10 assessment.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the depreciation based on the written down value from the 2009-10 assessment after considering the appellate decision. The appeal by Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, pending further assessment adjustments.

In summary, the judgment revolves around the correct determination of actual cost for depreciation calculation, highlighting the importance of aligning the cost valuation with the relevant assessment years and pending appellate decisions for accurate tax assessment.

---