9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation by a registered firm. 2. Rejection of carry forward and set off of business loss by the assessee. Comprehensive Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation by a Registered Firm: The primary issue was whether a registered firm is entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation from previous years and set it off against its business income for the assessment year 1968-69. The Tribunal had allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation but rejected the carry forward and set-off of business loss. The relevant provisions under scrutiny were Section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its predecessor provisions in the 1922 Act. The Tribunal's interpretation was based on the absence of a reference to Section 75 in Section 32(2), leading it to conclude that the normal provisions for carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation should apply. The court examined the legislative amendments and the intent behind the amendments made in 1953, which added specific language to Section 10(2)(vi)(b) of the 1922 Act, and subsequently Section 32(2) of the 1961 Act. The court noted that the amendment aimed to prevent double benefit of depreciation allowance by ensuring that if depreciation is fully allowed in the assessment of partners, it cannot be carried forward by the firm. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation and the assessee's argument that unabsorbed depreciation should revert to the firm if not fully allowed in the partners' assessments. The court emphasized that once depreciation is allocated to partners, it cannot be carried back to the firm. The court also referred to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court, which supported this interpretation. The court concluded that the benefit of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation should be worked out in the individual assessment of partners when the assessee is a registered firm. Therefore, the court answered the first question in the negative, against the assessee. 2. Rejection of Carry Forward and Set Off of Business Loss: The second issue concerned whether the assessee's claim to carry forward and set off a business loss of Rs. 3,49,242 against its total income for the assessment year 1968-69 was rightly rejected. The assessee conceded this issue during the hearing, acknowledging that it was concluded by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhanji Shamji. The court noted that the Tribunal had correctly rejected the carry forward and set-off of business loss based on Section 72(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the court answered the second question in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue. Conclusion: 1. The court held that a registered firm is not entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation if it is not fully allowed in the partners' assessments. The first question was answered in the negative and against the assessee. 2. The court affirmed that the assessee's claim to carry forward and set off business loss was rightly rejected. The second question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the revenue.
|
