IMPACT OF WAIVER OF LOAN ON DEPRECIATION CLAIM

BINJRAJKA STEEL TUBES LTD.’s CASE

In this case, the assessee had purchased certain machinery from M/s Tata SSL Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 6 crores. Since the machinery supplied was found to be defective, the matter was taken up with the supplier for replacement and after protracted correspondence and a legal battle, the supplier agreed to an out-of-court settlement. As per this settlement, the liability of the assessee which was payable to the supplier to the extent of Rs. 2 crores was waived.

During the previous year relevant to assessment year 2005-06, the assessee gave effect to this settlement in its books of accounts by reducing the cost of machinery by Rs. 2 crores. Consequently, the depreciation for the year had also been adjusted, including withdrawal of excess charged depreciation of earlier years amounting to Rs. 1,19,01,058. While making the assessment, the A.O. added back the amount of Rs. 2 crores as income of the assessee u/s 41(1), and this was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the remission of liability of Rs. 2 crores which was written back was not taxable u/s 41(1) because cessation of liability was towards a capital cost of asset and, hence, it was a capital receipt. On the other hand, the Department argued that the assessee had claimed the depreciation on Rs. 6 crores from the year of acquisition of the asset. From the date of inception of the asset, depreciation was allowed by the Department on the block of assets, and when the assessee received any amount as benefit by way of reduction of cost of acquisition, the amount of benefit had to be offered for taxation as per the provisions of section 41(1).

The Tribunal referred to the provisions of section 41(1) and held that it could be invoked only where any allowance or deduction had been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee, and subsequently, during any previous year, the assessee had obtained any amount or some benefit with respect to such loss, expenditure or trading liability. The benefit of depreciation obtained by the assessee in the earlier years could not be termed as an allowance or expenditure claimed by the assessee in the earlier years. Hence, any recoupment received by the assessee on this count could not be taxed u/s 41(1). Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s contention that the assessee had obtained the benefit of depreciation in the earlier years as allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by it when it bought the plant and machinery and the Rs. 2 crores liability waived by the supplier of the machinery in the year under consideration was liable to be taxed as deemed income within the purview of section 41(1).

Though the issue raised before the Tribunal was only with regard to the taxability of the amount waived u/s 41(1), it further dealt with the issue of adding back of depreciation which was already claimed on the said amount. For the purpose of dealing with the said issue of disallowance of depreciation which was not raised before it, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Steel Containers Ltd. vs. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 995, wherein it was held that when the Tribunal finds that disallowance of a particular expenditure by the authorities below is not proper, it is competent to sustain the whole or part of the disputed disallowance under a different section under which it is properly so disallowable.

On the merits of the issue of disallowance of depreciation, the Tribunal held that depreciation already allowed in past years on the amount which was waived by the supplier under the settlement with the assessee had to be withdrawn and added back in the year under consideration, as otherwise, the assessee would get double benefit which was not justified. Accordingly, the A.O. was directed to add the amount of depreciation claimed in past years on the amount of Rs. 2 crores as income u/s 28(iv) as the value of benefit arising from the business. After reducing the said amount of depreciation granted earlier from the amount of Rs. 2 crores, the Tribunal further directed that the balance amount was to be reduced from the closing WDV of the block of assets, without giving any reasoning or relying on any relevant provision of the Act.

AKZO NOBEL COATINGS INDIA (P) LTD.’s CASE
The issue, thereafter, came up for consideration before the Bengaluru Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akzo Nobel Coatings India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 139 ITD 612.

In this case, the assessee acquired plant and machinery for its Hoskote plant in April, 1996. Since the assessee could not obtain approval from the RBI for making payment to the supplier, ultimately CEL, UK, one of the group companies, made the payment for the machinery to the suppliers. Thus, the funds for supply of machinery which were originally payable by the assessee to the suppliers became payable by the assessee to CEL, UK. Later, CEL, UK was taken over by Akzo International BV. As a part of the business restructuring and because of the absence of RBI approval for making remittances of monies due for supply of machinery, and taking note of the business exigency, Akzo International BV decided to waive the money payable in respect of supply of machineries to the assessee. Thus, the assessee was the beneficiary of the waiver of loan to the extent of Rs. 13,48,09,000.

This waiver of the loan took place in April, 2000. The benefit as a result of the waiver was shown in the books of accounts of the assessee in the balance sheet as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The assessee had claimed depreciation on those machineries from the A.Y. 1997-98 onwards. The fact of waiver of the amount payable by the assessee came to the knowledge of the A.O. in the course of assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2004-05. Thereafter, action was initiated u/s 148 to reduce the WDV of the relevant block of assets and withdraw the depreciation already granted to the assessee in the past.

According to the A.O., on the waiver of loan by the parent company, the WDV of the plant and machinery had to be reworked by reducing from the opening WDV, the amount of loan which had been waived by the parent company, viz., a sum of Rs. 13,48,09,000. The A.O., accordingly, worked out the depreciation allowable on plant and machinery by reducing the WDV on which depreciation had to be allowed for A.Y. 2001-02. A similar exercise of reworking the amount of the WDV and resultant depreciation thereon was made for the subsequent years as well.

On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) took the view that the entire waiver of the loan cannot be reduced from the WDV of the block of assets. He held that the whole of the original cost cannot be reduced from the opening WDV as on 1st April, 2001. This was on the basis that the provisions of section 43(6) did not envisage reduction of cost of assets in the guise of disallowance of depreciation. He, accordingly, directed the A.O. to reduce only the WDV of the assets concerned, i.e., Rs. 4,73,32,812, and not the whole of the original cost. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) giving partial relief.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that only those adjustments which have been provided u/s 43(6)(c) could be made to the WDV of the block of assets. Since no assets were sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed, the amount of loan waived by the supplier of machinery could not be reduced. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 285, wherein the Supreme Court held that the manner of repayment of loan availed by an assessee for the purchase of an asset on which depreciation is claimed cannot have any impact on allowing depreciation on such assets. It was also submitted that Explanation 10 to section 43(1) would not apply to the present case, because the amount waived by the parent company cannot be said to be the cost of the asset met directly or indirectly by any authority in the form of ‘subsidy or grant or reimbursement’. On the other hand, Revenue pleaded to restore the order of the A.O.

The Tribunal held that the only way by which the WDV on which depreciation is to be allowed as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) can be altered is as per the situation referred to in section 43(6)(c)(i), A and B, i.e., increased by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year and reduced by the monies payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during that previous year together with the amount of the scrap value, if any. In the present case, neither was there purchase of the relevant assets during the previous year, nor was there sale, discarding or demolition or destruction of those assets during the previous year. The relevant assets continued to be owned and used by the assessee. Therefore, these provisions could not have been resorted to for the purpose of making adjustments to the WDV of the block as made by the A.O.

Examining the applicability of the provisions of Explanation 10 to section 43(1), which provide for reduction of cost under certain circumstances, the Tribunal held that they would apply only when there was a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. In the present case, there was no subsidy or grant or reimbursement. There was only a waiver of the amounts due for purchase of machinery, which did not fall within the scope of any of the aforesaid expressions used in Explanation 10. Even otherwise, section 43(1) was applicable only in the year of purchase of machinery and in the case before the Tribunal, the purchase of the machinery in question was not in A.Y. 2001-02. Therefore, the actual cost which had already been recognised in the books in the A.Y. prior to A.Y. 2001-02 could not be disturbed in A.Y. 2001-02.

The Tribunal pointed out that there was a lacuna in the law as the assessee on the one hand got the waiver of monies payable on purchase of machinery and claimed such receipt as not taxable because it was a capital receipt. On the other hand, the assessee claimed depreciation on the value of the machinery for which it did not incur any cost. Thus, the assessee was benefited both ways.

As per the law as it prevailed as on date, the Revenue was without any remedy. The only way that the Revenue could remedy the situation was that it had to reopen the assessment for the year in which the asset was acquired and fall back on the provisions of section 43(1), which provided that actual cost means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee. Even this could be done only after the waiver of the loan which was used to acquire machinery. By that time if the assessments for that A.Y. got barred by time, the Revenue was without any remedy. Even the provisions of section 155 did not provide for any remedy to the Revenue in this regard.

The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (Supra) wherein a view had been taken that repayment of loan borrowed by an assessee for the purpose of acquiring an asset had no relevance to the cost of assets on which depreciation has to be allowed.

OBSERVATIONS

The claim of depreciation is governed by the provisions of section 32. It allows a deduction of an amount to be calculated at prescribed percentage on the WDV of the block of assets. Section 43(6)(c) defines the expression ‘written down value’ with respect to a block of assets and it reads as under:

(6) ‘written down value’ means –
(c) in the case of any block of assets, –
(i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year and adjusted, –
(A) by the increase by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year;
(B) by the reduction of the moneys payable in respect of any asset falling within that block, which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during that previous year together with the amount of the scrap value, if any, so, however, that the amount of such reduction does not exceed the written down value as so increased; and…………………..

The WDV of the block of assets is required to be determined only in the manner as provided in section 43(6)(c). Nothing can be added to it and nothing can be reduced from it which has not been provided for in the aforesaid provision. The aforesaid provision leaves no scope for any reduction in the WDV of any block of assets for any reasons other than the sale, discarding, demolition or destruction of the assets falling within that block.

Thus, once the actual cost of any asset has been added to the WDV of the block of assets, no further adjustments have been provided for in the Act to reduce the amount of that actual cost in any later year on the ground that the loan taken to pay that cost or a part of the purchase price has been waived off. In the absence of any such provision under the Act allowing reduction of the WDV of the block of assets on account of waiver of loan taken or part of purchase price for acquiring the assets forming part of that block of assets, no adjustment could have been made for giving effect to the benefits derived by the assessee on account of such a waiver by revising the amount of WDV.

This leads us to the issue whether on account of waiver of the loan from which that asset was acquired it can be said that the ‘actual cost’ of the asset which was added to the WDV of the block of assets has now undergone a change and, therefore, the adjustment is required to be made to give effect to the revised amount of the ‘actual cost’. In this regard, attention is drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (Supra); the relevant extract from it is reproduced below:

Coming to the question raised, we find it difficult to follow how the manner of repayment of loan can affect the cost of the assets acquired by the assessee. What is the actual cost must depend on the amount paid by the assessee to acquire the asset. The amount may have been borrowed by the assessee, but even if the assessee did not repay the loan, it will not alter the cost of the asset. If the borrower defaults in repayment of a part of the loan, the cost of the asset will not change. What has to be borne in mind is that the cost of an asset and the cost of raising money for purchase of the asset are two different and independent transactions. Even if an asset is purchased with non-repayable subsidy received from the Government, the cost of the asset will be the price paid by the assessee for acquiring the asset. In the instant case, the allegation is that at the time of repayment of loan, there was a fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as a result of which the assessee had to repay a much lesser amount than he would have otherwise paid. In our judgment, this is not a factor which can alter the cost incurred by the assessee for purchase of the asset. The assessee may have raised the funds to purchase the asset by borrowing but what the assessee has paid for it is the price of the asset. That price cannot change by any event subsequent to the acquisition of the asset. In our judgment, the manner or mode of repayment of the loan has nothing to do with the cost of an asset acquired by the assessee for the purpose of his business.

Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. 184 ITR 230 (Supra) while dealing with the same issue of adjustment to the actual cost consequent to waiver of loan, held as under:

The Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corpn. is only a financier and when Atlanta Corpn. wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee to any part of the machinery purchased in 1968 was met by Atlanta Corpn. The Tribunal held that the remission of liability by Atlanta Corpn. long after the liability was incurred, cannot be relied on to hold that Atlanta Corpn. met directly or indirectly part of the cost of the machinery of the assessee purchased as early as 1968. As per section 43(7), if the cost of the asset is met directly or indirectly, at the time of purchase of the machinery, by any other person or authority, to that extent the actual cost of the asset to the assessee will stand reduced. But it is a far cry to state that though at the time of purchase of the machinery, no person met the cost either directly or indirectly, if, long thereafter a debt incurred in that connection is written off, it could be equated to a position that the financier met part of the cost of the asset to the assessee. We are unable to accept the plea that the remission of liability by Atlanta Corpn. can, in any way, be said to be one where the Corpn. met directly or indirectly the cost of the asset to the assessee.

Thus, the ‘actual cost’ of the asset does not undergo any change due to waiver of the loan obtained to acquire that asset. Explanation 10 to section 43(1) has limited applicability when the subsidy, grant or reimbursement is involved. The waiver of loan in no way can be equated with the subsidy, grant or reimbursement.

The next issue then is whether change in cost on account of price difference has any effect. The Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Mills Ltd. 193 ITR 255, held as under:

‘On strict accountancy principles, the increase or decrease in liability towards the actual cost of an asset arising from exchange fluctuation can be adjusted in the accounts of the earlier year in which the asset was acquired (if necessary, by reopening the said accounts). In that event, the accounts of that earlier year as well as subsequent years will have to be modified to give effect to variations in depreciation allowances consequent on the re-determination of the actual cost. However, though this is a course which is theoretically advisable or precise, its adoption may create a lot of practical difficulties. That is why the Institute of Chartered Accountants gave an option to business people to make a mention of the effect of devaluation by way of a note on the accounts for the earlier year in case the balance sheet in respect thereof has not yet been finalised but actually to give effect to the necessary adjustments in the subsequent years instead of reopening the closed accounts of the earlier year.

So far as depreciation allowance is concerned, under section 32, read with section 43(1) and (6) of the Act, the depreciation is to be allowed on the actual cost of the asset less all depreciation actually allowed in respect thereof in earlier year. Thus, where the cost of the asset subsequently goes up because of devaluation, whatever might have been the position in the earlier year, it is always open to the assessee to insist and for the ITO to agree that the written down value in the year in which the increased liability has arisen should be taken on the basis of the increased cost minus depreciation earlier allowed on the basis of the old cost. The written down value and allowances for subsequent years will be calculated on this footing. In other words, though the depreciation granted earlier will not be disturbed, the assessee will be able to get a higher amount of depreciation in subsequent years on the basis of the revised cost and there will be no problem.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
To obviate all these doubts and difficulties, section 43A was enacted.
…………………….
We also find it difficult to find substance in the second argument of Shri Salve that sub-section (1) was inserted only to define the year in which the increase or decrease in liability has to be adjusted. It is no doubt true that but for the new section, various kinds of arguments could have been raised regarding the year in which such liability should be adjusted. But, we think, arguments could also have been raised as to whether the actual cost calls for any adjustment at all in such a situation. It could have been contended that the actual cost can only be the original purchase price in the year of acquisition of the asset and that, even if there is any subsequent increase in the liability, it cannot be added to the actual cost at any stage and that, for the purposes of all the statutory allowances, the amount of actual cost once determined would be final and conclusive. Also, section 43A provides for a case in which, as in the present case, the assessee has completely paid for the plant or machinery in foreign currency prior to the date of devaluation but the variation of exchange rate affects the liability of the assessee (as expressed in Indian currency) for repayment of the whole or part of the monies borrowed by him from any person directly or indirectly in any foreign currency specifically for the purposes of acquiring the asset. It is a moot question as to whether in such a case, on general principles, the actual cost of the assessee’s plant or machinery will be the revised liability or the original liability. This is also a situation which is specifically provided for in the section. It may not, therefore, be correct to base arguments on an assumption that the figure of actual cost has necessarily to be modified for purposes of development rebate or depreciation or other allowances and that the only controversy that can arise will be as to the year in which such adjustment has to be made. In our opinion, we need not discuss or express any concluded opinion on either of these issues.’

The Supreme Court has therefore pointed out the situation in the absence of section 43A, which provision applies only to foreign exchange fluctuations. The identical logic would apply to other changes in cost, if such difference in cost is on account of difference in purchase price. In the absence of any specific provision similar to section 43A, any adjustment in cost would not be possible.

Further, the logic applied by the Tribunal in Binjrajka’s case to the effect that write-back of depreciation is a benefit derived by the assessee on waiver of the purchase price, and is therefore taxable u/s 28(iv), does not seem to be justified. A depreciation is only an allowance, and not an expenditure. It is merely an internal book entry to reflect diminution in value of the asset. By writing back depreciation, the assessee cannot be said to have derived any benefit. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 404 ITR 1, the benefit taxable u/s 28(iv) has to be a non-monetary benefit and a monetary benefit is not covered by section 28(iv). Therefore, the waiver of cost to the extent of excess depreciation allowed cannot be said to result in a perquisite chargeable to tax u/s 28(iv).

It is very clear that the provisions of section 41(1) would not apply in such a situation of waiver of loan or part of purchase price, as has also been accepted by the Tribunal in both the decisions. The provisions of section 28(iv) would also not apply. There is no other provision by which such waiver of a sum of a capital nature can be subjected to tax. The depreciation allowed in the past on the cost is not an expenditure or trading liability, which has been remitted or has ceased. It is the loan amount or the purchase price of the asset which has been remitted or which has ceased. Depreciation cannot be regarded to be a deduction claimed of such purchase price, being a statutory allowance. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, there is a lacuna in law, whereby such waiver is not required to be reduced from the cost of acquisition of the asset or from the written down value, nor is there a requirement for addition by way of reversal of depreciation claimed on such waived amount. The only recourse is to the provisions of section 155, within the specified time limit.

The better view of the matter, therefore, seems to be the view taken by the Bengaluru Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akzo Nobel Coatings India (P) Ltd. (Supra) that neither the depreciation claimed in the past year can be disallowed nor the written down value for the current year can be adjusted in a case where the loan taken to acquire or a part of the purchase price of the depreciable asset has been waived.