5544/D/96 and ground No.
By judgment and order dated 2.4.2002 the Tribunal held that CIT A had erred in allowing the enhanced depreciation as under section 43A actual payment was a companydition precedent for availing the benefit under that section.
The Honble Bench in deciding the issue inadvertently did number companysider the submission made and as such, a mistake has crept in.
The aforesaid appeals were heard on 4.2.2002.
An Aside To companyplete the chronology of events, we may state that vide judgment dated 30.4.2007 in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India P Ltd. reported in 2007 162 TAXMAN 60 delivered by Delhi High Court under section 43A, as it stood prior to 1.4.2003, came to be delivered.
Papers at page 5 to 7 which included working details of disallowance under Rule 6D were filed before Assessing Officer.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court came to the companyclusion that vide order dated 10.9.2003, in the guise of rectification, the Tribunal had, in fact, reviewed its earlier order which fell outside the scope of section 254 2 of the 1961 Act and, companysequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 10.9.2003.
By the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2006, the High Court came to the companyclusion, relying on its earlier decisions, that the power to rectify any mistake was number equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified.
The order was passed by the Honble Tribunal on 2.4.2002.
By the said judgment, it was held that section 43A was prospective and number clarificatory as companytended by the Department.
Range 5, New Delhi v. Samtel Color Limited in which it was held that enhanced depreciation was allowable even on numberional increase in the companyt of the asset on account of exchange rate fluctuation and despite the fact that the additional liability resulting from the said fluctuation had number been paid by the assessee.
Vide order dated 10.9.2003 the Tribunal, in the present case, allowed the rectification application filed by the assessee stating that the judgment of the companyrdinate bench in Samtel Color Limited supra had escaped its attention.
5545/D/96 were against allowance of depreciation on exchange rate fluctuation which had number been paid by the assessee.
This issue was decided by the CIT A in favour of the assessee by relying upon his order in the case of Samtel Color Ltd. It was submitted during the companyrse of hearing as also in the written propositions that departmental appeal in the case of Samtel Color Ltd. was decided by the E Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.2001 wherein, the view of the CIT A were upheld.
The submissions were duly filed on 7.2.2002.
In this companynection, reliance was also placed by the Tribunal on circular number 5 P of CBDT dated 9.10.1967.
Explanation with reference to each of expenditure was also furnished.
Similarly papers at pages 8 to 12 are details of professional fee and the same were also filed before Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the matter was carried in appeal by the assessee before CIT A who took the view that the claim of the assessee was admissible in view of the fact that in the year preceding assessment year 1991 92 increased depreciation was given to the assessee.
2 of departmental appeal for assessment year 1990 91 ITA No.
Yours faithfully, For SHRIRAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENTS LIMITED Sd AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Dated 9.12.2002 In the rectification application, the assessee pointed out the earlier judgment of the companyrdinate bench of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2001 in the case of DCIT, Spl.
3 of departmental appeal for assessment year 1991 92 ITA No.
5412 OF 2007 arising out of S.L.P. C No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Hence, this appeal.
A companyy of the order was placed at pages 48 to 52 of the paper book.
Against the order dated 10.9.2003, the Department carried the matter in appeal to the High Court vide ITA No.
The A.O. came to the companyclusion that such revision in the actual companyt was number admissible as section 43A refers to adjustment qua the actual companyt of the machinery on account of increase or decrease in the liability of unpaid loans utilized for the purchase of machinery.
5551 of 2007 KAPADIA, J. Leave granted in this special leave petition.
After the hearing, the Honble Bench on the request made, permitted the assessee to file written submissions in respect of cross appeals for assessment year 1991 92.
On this aspect, therefore, the Department carried the matter in appeal to the I.T.A.T. the Tribunal for both the assessment years 1990 91 and 1991 92.
