Madras High Court
M/S. Reiter Lmw Machinery Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 25 April, 2022
TCA No. 841 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Tax Case (Appeal) No. 841 of 2010
---
M/s. Reiter LMW Machinery Limited
Sulur Railway Feeder Road
Muthugoundenpudur
Coimbatore - 641 406 .. Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Company Circle I (1)
Chennai .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 260A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 against
the Order dated 06.03.2009 passed in ITA No.2204/Mds/2006 on the file of
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. Subbaraya Aiyar
For Respondent : Mr. M. Swaminathan and
Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
TCA No. 841 of 2010
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN,J.]
This is an assessee's appeal questioning the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal dated 06.03.2009, relating to the assessment year 2002-03.
2.The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of textile
machinery and they derived income from its 100% Export Oriented
Undertaking (EOU) and hence, they claimed exemption under section 10B of
the Income Tax Act (in short, “the Act”). According to the appellant, though
they had commenced its business in the year 1995-96, they claimed exemption
only during the assessment years from 1997-98 to 2001-02. While so, for the
assessment year 2002-03, the appellant filed their return of income on
29.10.2002 admitting a total income of Nil after claiming deduction under
section 10B of Rs.14,81,502/- and setting off unabsorbed depreciation of
Rs.37,09,820/- against the income from other sources. The return was
processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 21.02.2003 accepting the
appellant's claim of deduction. Subsequently, as per the proceedings of the
Commissioner of Income Tax dated 09.05.2003, notice dated 18.06.2003
under section 143(2) was issued indicating that the case was selected for
scrutiny to restrict the higher depreciation and to disallow set off the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years against the income from other
sources. Thereafter, upon hearing the appellant's representative, the assessing
officer passed the assessment order dated 22.03.2005 inter alia restricting the
claim of depreciation to Rs.4,22,33,168/- as against the claim of
Rs.5,34,00,463/- by adjusting the written down value as on 01.04.2001 and
disallowing a sum of Rs.37,09,820/- towards set off of unabsorbed
depreciation against the income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of
assessment, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who by order
dated 30.03.2009 partly allowed the appeal. Challenging the same, the
appellant went on further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
which by order dated 06.03.2009, dismissed the said appeal. Therefore, this
tax case appeal by the appellant /assessee before this court.
3.On 13.09.2010, this court admitted this Tax Case Appeal on the
following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation
should be allowed only on the notional WDV as on
01.04.2001 and not on WDV as on 01.04.1997?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Tribunal failed to appreciate that for the
assessment years 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 no depreciation
has been allowed and hence the depreciation for the current
assessment year should be allowed on the WDV as on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.04.1997?
TCA No. 841 of 2010
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions
of Section 10B (6) would apply to the assessment year in
question even though it is not the previous year relevant to
the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the
relevant assessment years and the assessee has been held to
be entitled for relief under Section 10B for the year?
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant
is not entitled to set off unabsorbed depreciation brought
forward from the assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-
1997 in view of Section 10B(6) of the Act ignoring the fact
that for these two assessment years at the option of the
assessee, provisions of Section 10B were not applicable to
the Assessee?
(v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Tribunal failed to appreciate that in the case of
the appellant the assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-
1997 did not fall within the expression 'relevant assessment
years' under clause (v) of Explanation 2 (v) to Section 10B
and hence provisions of Section 10B (6) were not applicable
to the unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment years
1995-1996 and 1996-1997?
(vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the
unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from the
assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 cannot be set off
against the income computed under the head 'other sources'?
4.The aforesaid substantial questions of law can be summarised into the
following two main issues relating to (i)claim of depreciation and (ii)set off of
unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
5.1. Regarding the first issue viz., claim of depreciation, the assessing
officer placing reliance on section 10B (6) (i) and (iv) of the Act, concluded
that the appellant is entitled to depreciation only on the residual opening
written down value as on 01.04.2001 computed as per the Income Tax Act and
accordingly, restricted the claim of depreciation to Rs.4,22,33,168/-.
5.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant
commenced its manufacturing activities during the previous year relevant to
the assessment year 1995-1996, but did not opt for deduction under Section
10B of the Act until the assessment year 1997-1998; and they exercised the
option vested by virtue of sub-section (3) or sub-section (5) of Section 10B of
the Act only for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 and claimed higher
depreciation under section 32 on the closing WDV relating to the assessment
year 1996-97. The learned counsel further contended that the provisions of
section 10B(6) are applicable to the previous year relevant to assessment year
immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years or of any
previous year relevant to any subsequent assessment year and hence, the same
has no application during the assessment year preceding or during the relevant
assessment years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
5.3. On the other hand, the learned senior standing counsel for the
respondent contended that there is no provision under the Act to defer
depreciation for a particular period and hence, the appellant is entitled to
depreciation only on the residual opening of written down value as on
01.04.2001 and accordingly, the Assessing Officer rightly restricted the claim
of depreciation to Rs.4,22,33,168/-, as also affirmed by the Appellate
Authorities.
5.4. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is but relevant to refer to the
provisions of section 10B(6) of the Act, which read as under:
“10B(6) – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the
previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding
the last of the relevant assessment years, or of any previous year,
relevant to any subsequent assessment year -
(i)section 32, section 32A, section 33, section 35 and clause (ix) of
sub-section (1) of section 36 shall apply as if every allowance or
deduction referred to therein and relating to or allowable for any of the
relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April, 2001, in
relation to any building, machinery, plant or furniture used for the
purposes of the business of the undertaking in the previous year relevant
to such assessment year or any expenditure incurred for the purposes of
such business in such previous year had been given full effect to for that
assessment year itself and accordingly sub-section (2) of section 32,
clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2)
of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to
clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not
apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction;
(ii)....
(iii)...
(iv)in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the
written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of
the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of
the relevant assessment year.”
It is evident from the above said provisions that the allowance or deduction for
any relevant assessment years ending before the 1st April, 2001, in relation to
building, machinery, plant or furniture used for the business purposes in the
previous year relevant to such assessment year, had been given full effect to
for that assessment year itself.
5.5. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is running a 100% export
oriented unit (EOU) from the year 1995-96 and they enjoyed tax exemption
under section 10(B) of the Act. The benefit of exemption originally granted
was 100% of the income derived from the EOU. Subsequently, amendment
was introduced to section 10(B) in the year 2001, thereby restricting the
exemption to 90%, which necessitates the assessees to claim depreciation and
carry over excess absorbed depreciation for the subsequent years under section
32(2) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant claimed depreciation for the
assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02. According to the provisions of section
10B(6) as extracted above, the depreciation for the initial assessment years, in
which, the appellant commenced its production, was restricted and they were
not permitted to carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of
the earlier years to the subsequent years, because until 2001 there was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
complete exclusion of the income from EOU. Thus, applying the said
provisions of law, the assessing officer restricted the claim of depreciation
only on the residual of written down value as on 01.04.2001, which was
rightly affirmed by the appellate authorities. For better appreciation, the
findings of the appellate authorities are extracted below:
CIT(A)
“4.1. The section 10B(6)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 reads as under:
....
From a reading of this section, it is very clear that depreciation,
whether claimed or not, is to be taken as allowed and the WDV is to be
taken as if it is allowed. In the instant case, the appellant claims that it has
exercised its option in the earlier years that depreciation is not claimed,
but allowed to be carried forward. A reading of this section does not
indicate that the appellant is allowed any such kind of option. Whether the
appellant claims it or not, depreciation has to be taken to be allowed and
the WDV should be brought down accordingly. In view of this, I am of the
opinion that the finding of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order
on this point that the appellant is entitled for depreciation only on the
residual WDV as on 1-4-2001 is correct and the depreciation allowable
u/s 32 of the I.T.Act 1961 has been correctly restricted to Rs.4,22,33,168.
In view of this, no interference is called for in the finding of the Assessing
Officer on this point in the assessment order. The appellant's plea fails.”
ITAT
“2.3....
The relevant provisions of Section 10B(6) read as under:-
2.4. A reading of the above clearly indicates that depreciation,
whether claimed or not, is to be taken as allowed. Hence, when the
assessee enjoys exemption under these provisions, it is deemed that
depreciation u/s 32 has been allowed and the WDV of the asset used for
the purpose of business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the
assessee had claimed and had to be actually allowed the deduction in
respect of depreciation with respect to relevant assessment years. The
assessee's plea that the provisions of section 10B(6) are applicable to the
previous year relevant to assessment year immediately succeeding the last
of the relevant assessment years or of any previous year relevant to any
subsequent assessment year. Therefore, it was claimed that this section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
has no application during the assessment year preceding or during the
relevant assessment years. In our opinion, this is an unnecessary
interpolation in the plain provisions of the Act. As per the mandate of the
Act, in computing depreciation allowance u/s 32, it will be deemed that
assessee had claimed and has been actually allowed the deduction in
respect of depreciation with each of the relevant assessment years. Hence,
the written down value after this period has to be arrived at accordingly
and depreciation for succeeding years have to be with reference to this
reduced written down value. Hence, the assessee's plea that in current
assessment year, it can claim higher depreciation with reference to WDV
of assessment year 1996-97 is devoid of cogency. Hence, in our opinion,
the plea of the assessee is liable to be rejected. Hence, we affirm order of
authorities below on this issue.”
Thus, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid findings rendered by the
appellate authorities, warrant no interference and the first issue is decided in
favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law (i), (ii),
(iii), (iv) and (v) are answered against the appellant / assessee.
6.1. As regards the second issue viz., set off of unabsorbed
depreciation of Rs.37,09,820/- relating to assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-
97 against the income from other sources, the assessing officer disallowed the
said claim made by the appellant, on the ground that as per section 32(2), the
unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years can be set off only against the profits
and gains of any business carried on by the assessee and assessable in the
immediately succeeding assessment year and the same cannot be permissible
against the income from other sources; and that the appellant claimed
exemption under section 10B only from the assessment year 1997-98 onwards.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
The said finding of the assessing officer was also affirmed by the appellate
authorities.
6.2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the interest
income was not derived from industrial undertaking and therefore, not eligible
for deduction under section 10B. Further, the interest income though assessed
under the head 'income from other sources', it can be set off in computing the
total income of the appellant. Without considering the same, the assessing
officer erroneously disallowed the said claim and the same was also confirmed
by the Appellate Authorities, merely reiterating the findings of the assessing
officer. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this court
in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SPEL Semi Conductors Ltd, [(2013) 212
Taxman 0506] and submitted that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the
assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 can be brought forward and set off
against the income from other sources. The relevant paragraph of the said
decision can be profitably extracted below:
“6.Thus, as far as the income from other sources are concerned,
given the fact that under section 32(2) of the Act, there is a provision of set
off of unabsorbed depreciation allowance as against the income from other
sources, it is not necessary that one should wait for the assessee to earn
income from business so as to exhaust the carried forward loss to be set off
as against the business income and then apply the unabsorbed
depreciation. A reading of section 32(2) thus makes it clear that if the
unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be wholly set off under
clause (i) and clause (ii), the amount of depreciation not so set off can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
set off from income from other head, if any, available for that assessment
year. The language of section 32(2) is very clear and there is hardly
anything contained in section 72(2) to prevent such set off of carried
forward deprecation being given to the assessee under the head of income
from business or income from other sources. The Revenue does not deny
the fact that as far as the income from other sources are concerned, there
could be no set off of business loss or carried forward loss. However, what
is contended by the Revenue is that section 72(2) controls the operation of
section 32(2) to have the set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the
income from other sources. We do not agree with this line of reasoning.
What is spoken to under section 72(2) is as regards set off of business loss
as against the income from profits and gains of business or profession and
if there is loss as well as unabsorbed depreciation, the set off shall be first
on the business loss as against the business income and then on
unabsorbed depreciation. What is spoken to under section 32(2) is as
regards set off of unabsorbed depreciation as per clause (ii) of sub section
(1) and when the unabsorbed depreciation could not be set off as against
the income from business or profession by reason of there being no income
available under the said heads and where there is income from other
sources, effect must be given to section 32(2) of the Act for that assessment
year”.
6.3. The learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue
fairly conceded the submission made on the side of the appellant that the
authorities below failed to examine this issue in a proper perspective and
decided the same against the appellant / assessee.
6.4. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side and upon perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we set aside
the orders of the authorities below and remand the matter to the assessing
officer to the limited extent of deciding the claim of the assessee relating to set
off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97
against the income from other sources. The assessing officer shall reconsider
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
the issue and pass fresh orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant / assessee, as
expeditiously as possible. The sixth substantial question of law raised herein is
accordingly, decided in favour of the appellant / assessee.
7.This tax case appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
25.04.2022
rsh
Index:Yes/no
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Company Circle I (1)
Chennai
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I
Coimbatore.
3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras D Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 841 of 2010
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
rsh
TCA No. 841 of 2010
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
