The High Court held that the order u/s 263 made no reference to...

The High Court held that the order u/s 263 made no reference to the issue of depreciation, and the Tribunal had correctly answered the question by stating that the assessee's claim for depreciation was correct for more than one reason. The Tribunal found that the re-allocation of depreciation concerning the land and retail divisions was merely based on the Assessing Authority's opinion, which was not convincing. The Tribunal also opined that there was no practical purpose in making a distinction between the claim of depreciation for the retail business and land division business. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's findings and conclusions on identical facts and circumstances for the same assessment year had been accepted by the respondent, and thus, no substantial question of law arose. Although the respondent did not have the benefit of the Tribunal's order dated 21.07.2006 at the time of initiating action u/s 263, the Tribunal did consider it while passing the impugned order in 2007. The High Court considered the subsequent developments and the Tribunal's order, attaching finality to it. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee. Additionally, the High Court pointed out that the impugned order was dated 25.07.2008, and as per Section 153(3), a consequential order of assessment should have been passed within twelve months from the end of the financial.