Court Denies 100% Depreciation on Assets Not Replaced

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that 100% depreciation was not admissible on coal tubs, winding ropes, and safety lamps as the assets were not replaced in the relevant year and used for business purposes. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, with each party bearing its own costs. Judges SABYASACHI MUKHERJEE and SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA concurred with the judgment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of 100% depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, on coal tubs, winding ropes, and safety lamps.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of 100% Depreciation:
The core issue revolves around whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that 100% depreciation was not admissible on coal tubs, winding ropes, and safety lamps, given their values and the circumstances of their acquisition and use.

Facts and Contentions:
- The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on coal tubs, cap lamps, and haulage ropes for the assessment year, arguing that prior to the amendment of rule 5, these assets were not considered depreciable, and only the value of replacement and renewal was allowed as a revenue charge.
- The ITO rejected this claim, stating that these assets had already benefited from replacements or renewals and had no written down value (W.D.V.) at the beginning of the accounting year. According to section 43(6), depreciation is allowed on the actual cost of assets acquired in the previous year or the actual cost less all depreciation allowed in the case of assets acquired before the previous year.

AAC's Observations:
- The AAC upheld the ITO's decision, noting that the assessee had failed to provide details of the total number of tubs, ropes, safety lamps, and cap lamps capitalized at the beginning of the colliery and subsequent year-wise purchases, additions, discarding, and replacements.
- The AAC agreed that there could be no W.D.V. for items replaced and that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on the value of these assets as claimed.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal noted that the ITO's rejection was based on the absence of W.D.V. and the fact that these assets were not acquired during the year.
- The Tribunal affirmed that depreciation is allowed on specific assets used in the year, whether acquired during or prior to the previous year, but not on assets that ceased to exist and were not actually used during the year.
- The Tribunal emphasized that depreciation is allowable only on capital assets, not on assets whose costs have been allowed as business expenditure. The assessee failed to provide details of original assets not replaced and used during the relevant year.

Court's Analysis:
- The court reiterated that depreciation or allowance of expenditure must be determined with reference to the law prevalent in the year of assessment.
- Actual costs and W.D.V. should be computed in accordance with the provisions of the I.T. Act, irrespective of the previous year's position.
- The court noted that if there had been a replacement of any asset, the W.D.V. would be the full value of that asset. According to rule 5 and the relevant schedule, 100% depreciation was allowable on the value of replaced assets used in the year in question.
- However, the court found no evidence that any assets were replaced in the year in question and used for business, thus affirming the Tribunal's decision.

Conclusion:
- The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue, indicating that the Tribunal was correct in its decision.
- Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Separate Judgments:
- Both judges, SABYASACHI MUKHERJEE and SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, concurred with the judgment.

---