Facts of the Case

  • The Assessee (Sahara India) entered into an agreement to purchase a building from M/s Aarohi Builder (P) Ltd. on November 4, 1991.
  • A balance of ₹2,47,38,673 stood in the building account as of March 31, 1993, which included a construction cost of ₹2,44,59,490 transferred from the seller on March 16, 1993.
  • The Assessee applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the appropriate authority, which was subsequently granted on March 24, 1993. Due to this timeframe, the Assessee treated possession as effectively holding commercial dominion from April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993, and claimed a 10% depreciation amounting to ₹24,73,867.
  • The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation claim on the grounds that the registered purchase deed was not executed/produced and full financial settlement/construction transfers took place late in the financial year (March 16, 1993), inferring that possession had not been taken for the full year.

Issues Involved

  • Whether the ITAT was legally correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s order allowing a depreciation of ₹24,73,867 to the assessee on a building transferred from M/s Aarohi Builder (P) Ltd.
  • Whether a registered sale deed is a prerequisite for claiming depreciation under Section 32, or if factual possession, dominion over the property, and utilization for business purposes suffice.
  • Whether the ITAT's order was perverse on facts and law since the Assessee was not the registered owner during the assessment period.

Petitioner’s (Revenue's) Arguments

  • The Revenue contended that the Assessee could not have acquired or possessed the building before March 16, 1993, when the full payment/construction cost transfer was booked.
  • The Assessee failed to produce a valid registered deed of purchase for the property.
  • The Revenue also argued before the ITAT that the CIT(A) erroneously accepted additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an adequate opportunity to rebut it.

Respondent’s (Assessee's) Arguments

  • (Though none appeared for the Respondent at the final hearing, their standing position recorded via lower authorities was as follows):
  • The agreement for sale was executed far back on November 4, 1991, and factual physical possession was taken immediately thereafter.
  • The asset was actively treated as a business asset and deployed for business purposes throughout the period.
  • The legal requirement for claiming depreciation rests heavily on "possession and use" rather than a formal statutory registration of the transfer deed.
  • Furthermore, the AO had self-contradicted by allowing depreciation on the asset's Written Down Value (WDV) for the subsequent Assessment Year 1994-95. Important Clarification & Related Case Law
  • The Possession Principle: Legal registration of a property under the Registration Act is not a mandatory precondition to qualify as an "owner" for the purposes of Section 32 depreciation. Legal dominion, execution of a sale agreement, and handing over of actual physical possession are sufficient.
  • Precedent Cited: The CIT(A) and the Court relied upon the established legal position under Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. [127 ITR 97 (Alld.)] and supreme judicial precedents settling that possessory rights utilized for business attract depreciation benefits.

Court Order & Findings

  • The High Court noted that the agreement for sale was executed on November 4, 1991, an NOC was obtained, and actual possession was successfully transferred to the Assessee.
  • The Hon’ble Bench highlighted that the Supreme Court has well-settled the law that formal registration of the property is not a mandatory prerequisite for depreciation; rather, what matters is that possession is taken and the asset is deployed for business purposes.
  • The High Court observed that the issue was purely factual. Finding no error or perversity in the matching concurrent conclusions of the CIT(A) and the ITAT, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.
  • Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in limine.

Important Clarification

  • Possession and Business Use vs. Legal Registration: Formal statutory registration of a sale deed under the Registration Act is not a mandatory prerequisite for an assessee to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  • Criteria for Ownership Benefits: For the purpose of claiming depreciation, what is legally necessary and critical is that the dominion and factual possession of the property must have been transferred to the assessee, and the asset must be actively treated as a business asset deployed for business operations.

Sections Involved

  • Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Provisions regarding the allowance of depreciation on assets (buildings) used for business purposes.
  • Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Appeal to the High Court against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2010:DHC:12054/MMH19072010ITA8862010_114009.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.