Low tax effect bars Revenue appeal; appellate authority may allow corrected depreciation claims without a revised return.

ITAT Mumbai held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable because the disputed tax effect fell below the CBDT monetary threshold and no recognised exception applied, so the appeal was dismissed. It further held that the assessee could seek correction of an inadvertent depreciation short-claim and claim additional depreciation before the appellate authority even without filing a revised return, because the necessary material was already on record and the appellate power to admit such claims was not curtailed by the bar on fresh claims before the Assessing Officer. The depreciation claims were therefore allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable in view of the CBDT low tax effect circulars, and (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to claim correction of depreciation and additional depreciation before the appellate authority despite not filing a revised return.

Issue (i): whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable in view of the CBDT low tax effect circulars

Analysis: The disputed tax effect was found to be below the monetary threshold prescribed by the applicable CBDT circulars. The Revenue's computation based on the full depreciation figure was rejected on facts, and the actual amount in dispute was held to be substantially lower. The case did not fall within any recognised exception to the tax effect limit.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed for low tax effect.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee was entitled to claim correction of depreciation and additional depreciation before the appellate authority despite not filing a revised return

Analysis: The depreciation short-claim was treated as a correction of an inadvertent computational error in the return, and the claim for additional depreciation was supported by the record before the appellate authority. The bar against entertaining fresh claims by the Assessing Officer did not curtail the appellate authority's power to admit and allow such claims where the material necessary for adjudication was already on record.

Conclusion: The assessee's claim for corrected depreciation and additional depreciation was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed on the preliminary ground of low tax effect, while the assessee succeeded on the merits of the depreciation claims before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A fresh or corrected tax claim not made in the return may be entertained by the appellate authority if it is supported by the record, and a Revenue appeal below the prescribed CBDT tax effect threshold is not maintainable absent an applicable exception.

---