1980 (1) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal allows 10% depreciation rate on machinery in aerated water factory

The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing a higher depreciation rate of 10% on machinery in an aerated water factory, considering it ... Rectification Issues:1. Entitlement to depreciation rate on machinery in aerated water factory.2. Applicability of section 154 in the case.3. Correct rate of depreciation for machinery used in manufacturing aerated water.Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to Depreciation RateThe case involved a dispute over the entitlement of the assessee to claim depreciation at a rate higher than 7% on the machinery used in the aerated water factory. Initially, the assessee claimed and was allowed depreciation at 9% based on the machinery being operated by electricity. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) later sought to rectify this, contending that the machinery did not qualify for the higher rate. The Appellate Tribunal held that the machinery could be considered electrical machinery, potentially qualifying for a 10% depreciation rate. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no apparent mistake warranting a reduction to 7% and upheld the higher rate, dismissing the appeal of the department.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 154Section 154 of the Income Tax Act allows for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. In this case, the Tribunal determined that there was no such mistake justifying a reduction in the depreciation rate from 9% to 7%. The Tribunal highlighted that the nature of the machinery, whether electrical or not, was crucial in determining the applicable depreciation rate. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO's order reducing the rate to 7% was not sustainable as there was no evident mistake in allowing the higher rate initially.Issue 3: Correct Rate of DepreciationThe Tribunal's decision raised questions regarding the correct rate of depreciation applicable to the machinery used by the assessee. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of the machinery being electrical, which would warrant a 10% depreciation rate. The Tribunal critiqued the failure to determine the appropriate rate and directed a reassessment to ascertain the correct rate of depreciation in line with the nature of the machinery. The Tribunal indicated that the assessee could potentially be eligible for a refund if entitled to a higher depreciation rate, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the machinery details to determine the accurate rate.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the assessee by upholding the higher depreciation rate and dismissing the department's appeal. The case highlighted the importance of accurately assessing the nature of machinery to determine the correct depreciation rate, emphasizing the need for a meticulous review of relevant details to avoid erroneous conclusions.