Legal fiction under section 50C cannot extend to depreciation calculations under section 32

The ITAT Mumbai held that the legal fiction under section 50C for computing capital gains cannot be extended to depreciation calculations under section 32. The assessee was correct in using actual sale consideration rather than stamp duty valuation for computing written down value of building block assets. The legislature created specific legal fictions under sections 50C and 43CA for different purposes but no such provision exists for depreciation computation. The disallowance of excess depreciation was deleted. Additionally, regarding expense disallowance, the matter was restored to AO for fresh consideration with direction to assessee to produce supporting documents.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 71,94,901/- under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 89,03,154/- on an ad-hoc basis.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation under Section 50C:

The primary issue was whether the provisions of Section 50C, which substitutes the sale consideration with the stamp duty valuation for computing capital gains, could be applied to determine the written down value (WDV) for claiming depreciation on a block of assets. The assessee sold a factory building for Rs. 2,45,00,000/-, but the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 9,76,75,509/-. The assessee claimed depreciation based on the actual sale consideration, but the Assessing Officer (A.O.) substituted the sale consideration with the stamp duty value, leading to a disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 71,94,901/-.

The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, interpreting that the "moneys payable" should include the stamp duty valuation as per Section 50C. However, the Tribunal found that Section 50C's legal fiction is limited to computing capital gains and cannot be extended to depreciation calculations under Section 43(6). The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's stance that legal fictions should not be extended beyond their intended purpose. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the depreciation claim based on the actual sale consideration and not the stamp duty valuation.

2. Disallowance of Expenses on an Ad-hoc Basis:

The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 89,03,154/- on an ad-hoc basis due to the lack of supporting documents for various expenses claimed by the assessee. The A.O. disallowed 5% of the total expenses claimed, citing insufficient documentation. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting the absence of invoices and bank statements to verify the genuineness of the expenses.

During the Tribunal proceedings, the assessee's counsel acknowledged the lack of documentation and requested an opportunity to present the necessary evidence. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the A.O., allowing the assessee to submit the required documents for verification. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to reassess the expenses in accordance with the law after considering the new evidence.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee on the depreciation issue and remanding the expense disallowance issue back to the A.O. for further examination.

---