Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, New Central Revenuebuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. M/S Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Ltd., C-89

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 39/2019 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj) ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Ltd., C-89-90, Lal Kothi,Janpath, Jaipur Pin/gir No. Aaacr7857H ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. For Respondent(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Judgment 29/05/2019 1.At the outset the Counsel for the appellant submittedthat out of the four questions, three questions are covered againstthe appellant-Revenue. The first is with respect to the admissibilityof the deduction expenditure towards contribution to the StateRenewal Fund stands covered by the judgment of this Court in thecase of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. RajasthanState Seed Corporation Ltd. -DB Income Tax Appeal No.4/2016(decided on 29.4.2016). 2.The second question of law is with respect to claimtowards mines closure plan to the tune of ` 3.01 crores which wasdenied on the ground that the assessee had not provisioned it inthe books of accounts and it was not an ascertained liability. Theissue stands covered by the judgment in D.B.Income Tax AppealNo.151/2016 decided on 13.10.2017 in assessee’s case PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Rajasthan State Mines &Minerals Ltd, against the revenue. 3.The third question is with respect to the permissibilityof relief on account of the same transactions and whether thatwas capital in nature. Here to this Court decided in favour of theassessee by the judgment In D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.146/2016-Rajasthan State Mines & Minerral Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax decided on 13.12.2017. 4.On the 4[th] question i.e. with respect to allowingdepreciation or amortization of mining land and lease hold land,the assessee had not claimed in its return. This was the ground ofrejection, the CIT (A) confirmed the AO’s order. It is urged on thestrength of the authority of Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - (2006) 157 Taxman 1 (SC) thatin the absence of even a revised return, such claims areimpermissible. 5.The Revenue does not contend substantively on thisaspect. This court ruled in favour of the same assessee in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No. 146/2016- Rajasthan State Mines &Minerals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax in thefollowing terms:- “12. On the first issue, we are in complete agreementwith the view taken by the tribunal, therefore, first issueis required to be answered in favour of the departmentand against the assessee. 13. However, on the second issue, on a close scrutiny ofSub section 32 (ii) of the Income Tax Act which reads asunder:- Section 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of- (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences,franchises or any other business or commercial rights ofsimilar nature, being intangible assets acquired on orafter the 1st day of April, 1998, 13.1. In our considered opinion, the rights which aregiven to the assessee are of commercial rights which areakin to license for mining. 13.2. In that view of thematter, the contention of the assessee regardingdepreciation u/s 32(ii) is required to be accepted,therefore, the second issue is answered in favour of theassessee and against the department. “ 6.In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that noquestion of law involved on this aspect. At the same time, thisCourt is of the opinion that since special leave petitions preferredby Revenue in respect of these four questions are pending beforethe Supreme Court, the parties would be bound by the finaloutcome of those petitions or appeals, as the case may be, and bythe judgment of the Supreme Court. 7. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms. (G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ NAVAL KISHOR-TN/88