2025 (8) TMI 763 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on Goodwill Disallowed Under Section 263 Due to Erroneous Classification and Lack of New Evidence

Unique Mercantile India Ltd. Versus Princ ipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

Unique Mercantile India Ltd. Versus Princ ipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is justified on the grounds that the assessment order for AY 2018-19 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in allowing depreciation on goodwill in AY 2018-19 when the same was disallowed in the immediately preceding year (AY 2017-18) without any change in facts or legal position. Whether invoking section 263 of the Act is valid where the AO is alleged to have failed to make relevant inquiries or verify claims regarding depreciation on goodwill and escapement of income related to the amalgamating company. Whether the principle of consistency precludes revisional proceedings under section 263 when depreciation on goodwill was allowed in subsequent years after being disallowed in the earlier year. Whether the goodwill recorded post-amalgamation qualifies as a depreciable asset under the relevant provisions of the Act. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) exceeded jurisdiction by directing the AO to examine valuation aspects of goodwill pertaining to an earlier assessment year. Whether the invocation of section 263 proceedings is a mere difference of opinion or based on a substantive error prejudicial to Revenue. Whether the invocation of section 263 was a mechanical exercise ignoring the concluded reassessment proceedings and accepted returned income. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of invoking section 263 of the Act on grounds of erroneous and prejudicial assessment order Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act empowers the PCIT to revise an assessment order if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both conditions must be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the AO had disallowed depreciation on goodwill in AY 2017-18 based on facts and legal position applicable also to AY 2018-19. However, in AY 2018-19, the AO allowed the same depreciation claim without any inquiry or fresh justification, thereby failing to apply mind to the claim. Key Evidence and Findings: The goodwill was recorded at Rs.1202.35 crores post-amalgamation, and depreciation of Rs.57.11 crores at 5% was claimed under the block for 'Buildings,' which was inconsistent with the intangible nature of goodwill. The AO's failure to disallow depreciation again despite no change in facts was found to be an error prejudicial to Revenue. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial as it allowed a claim previously disallowed without inquiry, violating the statutory requirement under section 263. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's argument that the AO had accepted depreciation in subsequent years and thus the revisional jurisdiction was barred by the principle of consistency was rejected as the facts and legal position remained unchanged. Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was validly invoked as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Issue 2: Application of the principle of consistency in depreciation claims on goodwill Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of consistency generally prevents the Revenue from changing its stand arbitrarily in successive years unless there is a change in facts or law. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the principle applies when a claim has been accepted in the past and continues without change. Here, the depreciation claim was disallowed in the first year and allowed in the next without any fresh basis or change in facts. Key Evidence and Findings: No material indicated any change in facts or circumstances justifying allowance in AY 2018-19 after disallowance in AY 2017-18. The AO's failure to disallow in AY 2018-19 was an oversight, not a consistent application of law. Application of Law to Facts: The principle of consistency was held inapplicable as the position was reversed; the claim was disallowed first and then allowed without justification. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's reliance on subsequent allowance of depreciation was dismissed as irrelevant to the correctness of the earlier assessment. Conclusion: The principle of consistency did not bar invoking section 263 to correct the erroneous allowance of depreciation in AY 2018-19. Issue 3: Whether goodwill qualifies as a depreciable asset under the Act Legal Framework and Precedents: Goodwill is an intangible asset. Depreciation on goodwill is generally not allowable under section 32 read with section 43(1) of the Act unless specific provisions or judicial precedents permit. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that goodwill recorded represented actual consideration paid over the value of assets taken over from the amalgamating company. However, the goodwill was treated as a depreciable building asset at 5%, which was inconsistent with its intangible nature. Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's acceptance of depreciation claim without verifying the nature of asset or applying correct depreciation rate was flawed. The PCIT distinguished judicial precedents cited by the assessee, noting that higher forums have not upheld depreciation on goodwill on merits. Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the depreciation claim on goodwill was not legally sustainable as the asset was intangible and depreciation claimed under 'Buildings' block was incorrect. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's argument that goodwill falls within the definition of depreciable asset was rejected due to lack of legal basis and incorrect classification. Conclusion: Goodwill does not qualify for depreciation as claimed, and the AO's failure to disallow depreciation was erroneous. Issue 4: Whether the AO failed to make relevant inquiries or verify claims on depreciation and escapement of income Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO is required to apply mind and make necessary inquiries to verify claims and ensure correct assessment. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the AO did not make inquiries regarding the depreciation claim on goodwill despite disallowing it in the prior year and despite pending appeals. The AO also failed to clarify whether income of the amalgamating company (UMIPL) was offered to tax by the amalgamated entity (UMIL). Key Evidence and Findings: The PCIT noted that the AO merely accepted the claim as shown in the computation without any inquiry or verification, which is insufficient to constitute proper assessment. Application of Law to Facts: The AO's failure to apply mind and make inquiries rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended that primary details were provided and the claim was apparent from records, but the Court found this insufficient to absolve the AO of duty to verify. Conclusion: The AO's failure to make relevant inquiries justified revision under section 263. Issue 5: Jurisdictional limits regarding examination of valuation of goodwill relating to earlier assessment year Legal Framework and Precedents: The revisional authority cannot direct reassessment or inquiry into issues pertaining exclusively to an earlier assessment year under section 263. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The PCIT directed the AO to examine valuation of goodwill pertaining to AY 2017-18 while deciding AY 2018-19. The Court noted this was beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 for the year under consideration. Key Evidence and Findings: The valuation issue related to an earlier year and was already subject to assessment and appeal proceedings. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by directing inquiry into earlier year's valuation while revising the current year's assessment. Treatment of Competing Arguments: No substantial argument was accepted to justify such direction. Conclusion: Direction to examine earlier year valuation was beyond jurisdiction and void. Issue 6: Whether revisional proceedings under section 263 amount to mere difference of opinion Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because of a difference of opinion between AO and PCIT; the assessment order must be erroneous and prejudicial. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the AO's failure to disallow depreciation on goodwill, contrary to the previous year's order and without inquiry, constituted an error, not merely a difference of opinion. Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's acceptance of depreciation at an incorrect rate and classification without verification was a substantive error. Application of Law to Facts: The Court distinguished mere difference of opinion from an error affecting Revenue's interest. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's claim of difference of opinion was rejected. Conclusion: Revision under section 263 was not based on difference of opinion but on an error prejudicial to Revenue. Issue 7: Whether section 263 proceedings were a mechanical exercise ignoring concluded reassessment and accepted returned income Legal Framework and Precedents: Revisional proceedings must be based on fresh material or error; they cannot be a mechanical repetition of concluded proceedings. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the reassessment under section 148 had concluded with no additions, and the returned income including the disputed amount was accepted. However, the PCIT found that the AO did not apply mind in the subsequent year's assessment. Key Evidence and Findings: The PCIT's invocation of section 263 was based on the AO's failure to disallow depreciation in AY 2018-19, not on the reassessment of escaped income. Application of Law to Facts: The revisional proceedings addressed a distinct error in AY 2018-19 assessment order and were not a duplication of earlier proceedings. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's contention of duplication and mechanical exercise was rejected. Conclusion: Section 263 proceedings were valid and not mechanical or duplicative.