Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against separate orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The appeals were heard together as the issues were common. The assessee's grievance was against the CIT(A) confirming the allowance of depreciation claimed under Section 32 without appreciating Explanation 2B to Section 43(6).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Tribunal's previous decision held that amendments made by the Finance Act, 2003, which removed ambiguity regarding 'as appearing in the books of account', did not affect substantive rights and were curative in nature, thus applying prospectively to the facts of that case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the allowance of depreciation by not appreciating the provisions of Explanation 2B to Section 43(6) of the Act as amended.
Sections Cited
32, 43(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre/CIT(A), even dated 29/04/2024 pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16.
As the issues arising in both these appeals are common, they were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.
3. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the allowance of depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act, without appreciating the provisions of Explanation 2B to Section 43(6) of the Act amended by the Finance Act, 2003. & 3323/Mum/2024 2
The ld. A/R, at the outset, fairly submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue against the assessee while following the decision of Co- ordinate Bench ITAT Mumbai in assessee’s own case for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05, to which the ld. CIT D/R had nothing to object upon.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has followed the order of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in & 4539/M/2011 for AY 2003-04 & 2004-05, dt. 31/12/2014, and decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Before the ld. CIT(A) also, assessee had fairly conceded that the issue stands decided against it. 4.1. The Tribunal while adjudicating the identical issue in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 4538 & 4539/M/2011 for AY 2003-04 & 2004-05, vide order dt. 31/12/2014, had held as under:- “20. We have perused the aforesaid decisions and found that the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decisions are unanimous to hold that where a substantive right has been affected by the amendment, the amendment, if not so expressively provided under the relevant statute, will have to be taken prospectively. However, the above decisions cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, as observed above by us, the omission of the words "as appearing in the books of account" neither have in any way affected any substantive right already vested in the assessee nor has taken away any such right which was accruing to the assessee before such omission. In fact, the curative amendment was made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2000 and only the ambiguity has been removed vide Finance Act, 2003 so as to bring clarity. In our humble view, whatever rights had accrued to the assessee in view of the ambiguity in the provisions at the time of their insertion vide Finance Act, 1999, the same had been taken away/clarified immediately by removing the ambiguity through amendment made vide Finance Act, 2000. Hence, without going into the details of the facts of the various case laws, we have no hesitation to hold that the proposition laid therein cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. These grounds are accordingly decided against the assessee.”