ITAT Chennai Upholds Reopening under Section 147 for AY 2003-04

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT CHENNAI dismissed cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue challenging the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IV's order for the assessment year 2003-04. The Tribunal upheld the reopening under section 147, rejecting the assessee's jurisdictional and time-barred arguments. It also affirmed the treatment of project assets as 'building' for depreciation purposes, in line with previous rulings. The Revenue's appeal against allowing depreciation at 10% on project assets failed.

---

---

Issues involved: Cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IV at Chennai, dated 16-9-2011, arising out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3), read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Assessee's Appeal:
1. The assessee contended that the action initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction and time-barred. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) upheld the reopening, stating that the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee was known to the Assessing Officer before issuing the notice u/s 147, justifying the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's view, rejecting this ground.

2. The second issue raised by the assessee was regarding the treatment of the project asset as 'building' instead of 'plant' for depreciation u/s 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) followed the Tribunal's order in previous cases, holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 10% on roads, similar to buildings, and not at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision, thus rejecting this ground as well.

Revenue's Appeal:
1. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in allowing depreciation on project assets at the rate of 10% applicable to buildings, arguing that the assessee was not the owner of the asset. However, the Commissioner's decision was supported by the Tribunal's rulings in similar cases, granting depreciation at the rate of 10%. Consequently, the Revenue's ground failed.

In conclusion, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CHENNAI, upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IV at Chennai.

---