THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S WIPRO FINANCE LTD

ITA/2/2008

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which upheld the depreciation claim of M/s. Wipro Finance Ltd. for the assessment year 2001-02. Initially, the depreciation claim was disallowed in a block assessment order due to the assets being deemed not genuine. However, subsequent regular assessments and appellate decisions favored the assessee, leading to the current appeal. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision, but the High Court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the established facts and the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700975 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S R ANURADHA
• Assessee Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Keywords: Block assessment; Depreciation; Income Tax; Limitation; Regular assessment; Substantial questions of law
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2008 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R.Building Queens Road Bangalore. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3) C.R.Building Queens Road Bangalore. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND: M/s.Wipro Finance Ltd. Wipro Centre No.5, Papanna Street St.Marks Road Bangalore. …RESPONDENT (By Smt.S.R.Anuradha, Adv.) - 2 - THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.8.2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.876/BANG/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: i. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ii. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE, IN ITA NO.876/BANG/2005 DATED 10.8.2007 & CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax allowing the depreciation to the extent of Rs.41,14,142/-. - 3 - 2. In the block assessment order dated 29.10.1999, the assets claimed by the assessee were held to be not genuine. Accordingly, the depreciation relating to such assets was disallowed. The said order of assessment was set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 21.3.2003 on the short ground of the said assessment being barred by limitation. Against the said order, the Revenue preferred a reference under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act before this Court. It is submitted that the said reference is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and now the matter is pending before the Apex Court. 3. It is to be noticed that the said order is in block assessment. Outside the block period, a regular assessment order was passed in respect of the assessment year 1997-98 where the assessee had claimed depreciation in a sum of Rs.24,38,55,935/-. The same was disallowed. The Appellate Authority - 4 - confirmed the said order. The Tribunal by its order dated 3.6.2004 in I.T.A.No.795/Bang/2000 upheld the claim of depreciation for the assessment year 1997-98. Following the aforesaid judgment, for the assessment year 2001-02, though the Assessing Authority declined to grant the benefit of depreciation to an extent of Rs.41,14,142/-, both the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have granted the benefit to the assessee. For the assessment year 2001-02, both the Appellate Authorities have held that assessee has substantiated his claim for depreciation and accordingly, they have upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax. When there is a concurrent finding of fact that the assessee has established his claim for depreciation, we do not see any justification to interfere with the said finding of fact and hence, in our view, no substantial question of law do arise for consideration in this appeal. - 5 - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, without answering the substantial question of law framed in this appeal. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KNM/- "