Tribunal rules CIT lacked authority to direct depreciation, upholds power on deduction claims

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to impose depreciation on the assessee, emphasizing the implicit option for the assessee to claim or forgo depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's authority on other issues, including the verification of deduction claims under section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision clarified the statutory benefit of depreciation and the necessity for furnishing particulars, ruling that the CIT's exercise of revisionary power on the depreciation issue was without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the withdrawal of depreciation claim by the assessee and the authority of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) to revise the assessment order.

Interpretation of Section 263 - Withdrawal of Depreciation Claim:
The assessee initially filed a return of income showing a loss and later filed a revised return withdrawing the claim of depreciation. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the revised return, but the CIT found the AO's order erroneous and invoked section 263, directing the AO to verify the claim of depreciation. The assessee contended that the CIT erred in invoking section 263, citing precedents supporting the view that the assessee has the option to claim or forgo depreciation. The Tribunal, after considering various decisions, including the judgment in CIT vs. Mahendra Mills, held that the option to claim depreciation is implicit, and the CIT was not justified in directing the AO to impose depreciation on the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal vacated the CIT's order on this issue, ruling that the exercise of revisionary power by the CIT on the depreciation issue was without jurisdiction.

Verification of Other Issues by the AO:
Apart from the depreciation issue, the CIT directed the AO to verify other claims made by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's revisionary power on these issues, finding it justified. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT's direction to verify the claim for deduction under section 35D of the Act and other related matters.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the CIT's exercise of revisionary power on the depreciation issue was without jurisdiction but upholding the CIT's authority on the other issues. The Tribunal's decision clarified the implicit option for the assessee to claim or forgo depreciation, emphasizing the requirement for furnishing particulars and the privilege of depreciation as a statutory benefit.

---