Pr.CIT's revision order under Section 263 quashed for depreciation on goodwill and inventory amortization disallowance

ITAT Mumbai quashed Pr.CIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding depreciation on goodwill and inventory amortization disallowance. The tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was permissible per SC precedent in Smifs Securities Ltd, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. Regarding inventory amortization, despite assessee's admission of inadvertent error requesting higher disallowance, the tribunal found no revenue prejudice as assessee had substantial business losses that would have lapsed. The twin conditions of Section 263 - order being both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - were not satisfied. Appeal decided in favor of assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Depreciation on goodwill and other intangible assets.
3. Underassessment due to inventory amortization.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Ld. Pr.CIT) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Pr.CIT believed that the assessment order dated 18.03.2021 was "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." The Tribunal examined the case records and relevant documentary evidence in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules. The Tribunal noted that for the Ld. Pr.CIT to assume jurisdiction under Section 263, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied: the order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DG Housing Projects [343 ITR 329], emphasizing that the CIT must conduct necessary inquiries and record a clear finding that the order is erroneous and unsustainable in law.

2. Depreciation on Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets:
The Ld. Pr.CIT contended that the depreciation claimed on goodwill and trade name by the assessee company was not allowable under the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act. The Tribunal analyzed Section 32(1) and Explanation 7 of Section 43(1), concluding that the actual cost of goodwill to the amalgamated company should be the same as it would have been for the amalgamating company. Since the actual cost of goodwill for the amalgamating company (UHEPL) was zero, the same should apply to the amalgamated company (assessee). However, the Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation, noting that the appellant paid consideration over and above the net assets value of the amalgamating company, which was taken as the cost of acquisition of goodwill. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd., where it was held that goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) and depreciation on goodwill is allowable. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue regarding this issue.

3. Underassessment Due to Inventory Amortization:
The Ld. Pr.CIT identified an error in the assessee's suomoto disallowance of inventory amortization, noting that the assessee disallowed Rs. 14.71 crores instead of Rs. 20.88 crores, resulting in underassessment of Rs. 6.17 crores. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had substantial losses, and the business loss for assessment year 2009-10 amounting to Rs. 61.30 crores would have lapsed during the year under consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that this error did not result in revenue loss, and the twin conditions of the order being "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" were not fulfilled. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd., emphasizing the necessity of satisfying both conditions for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the assessment order dated 18.03.2021 was neither "erroneous" nor "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT dated 27.03.2023 and restored the assessment order dated 18.03.2021. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2024.

---