2022 (7) TMI 121 - AT - Income Tax

Allowance of carry forward to future years of unabsorbed depreciation and its treatment as current depreciation - HELD THAT - As we see no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) allowing the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 200-01 and 2001-02 following the decision of General Motors India .P. Ltd ( 2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by CIT(A) regarding unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal was marked as delayed by 32 days, but the pandemic situation extended the limitation for filing appeals. The Supreme Court's order allowed the appeal to be filed within the extended timeframe, eliminating the delay issue.

2. Treatment of Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The main issue revolved around the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02. The AO contended that the unabsorbed depreciation could only be carried forward for 8 years until AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10. However, the CIT(A) allowed the carry forward based on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in a specific case, emphasizing that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be carried forward as part of current depreciation.

3. Legal Interpretation and Precedent:
The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT to support the allowance of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02. The High Court's decision clarified the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation as part of current depreciation brought forward, following the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act.

4. Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for the mentioned assessment years. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as it was in line with the precedent set by the Jurisdictional High Court. The lack of contradictory decisions from higher authorities further supported the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the taxpayer by allowing the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02, following the legal interpretation and precedent established by the Jurisdictional High Court.