9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 28 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - excess carry forwarded of unabsorbed depreciation and set off after a period of eight years - whether the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was valid and proper? - whether in allowing excess carry forwarded of unabsorbed depreciation and set off after a period of eight years in view of the amended Section 32 (2) of the Act is justified? - HELD THAT - Tribunal considered the said issue and, in our opinion, rightly held that for invocation of the power under Section 263 of the Act two conditions have to be specified simultaneously, namely, the order sought to be revised should be shown to be erroneous and it should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this regard the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT . We find that there is no error in the manner the Tribunal has decided this issue and we affirm the view taken by the Tribunal. On the merits of the matter it appears to us that as to whether in allowing excess carry forwarded of unabsorbed depreciation and set off after a period of eight years in view of the amended Section 32 (2) of the Act is justified, the said issue is no longer res integra. We find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. The substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Justification of allowing excess carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of eight years under the amended Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue for consideration was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax's exercise of power under Section 263 was valid and proper. The Tribunal, in its analysis, held that for the invocation of power under Section 263, two conditions must be satisfied simultaneously: the order sought to be revised should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC). The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's view, finding no error in its decision. 2. Justification of allowing excess carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of eight years under the amended Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Tribunal addressed whether allowing the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years, in light of the amended Section 32(2), was justified. The revenue argued that the Tribunal should have considered the decision in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 73 taxmann.com 258 (SC). However, this decision was deemed inapplicable in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. [2020] 122 taxmann.com 212 (Madras). The High Court referred to several judgments and a Circular No. 14/2001 dated 22-11-2002 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which clarified that the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation was dispensed with to enable industries to conserve sufficient funds for replacing plant and machinery. The Court cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 364/210 Taxman 20/[2013] 354 ITR 244, which elaborated that any unabsorbed depreciation available on 1st April 2002 would be governed by the amended Section 32(2) and could be carried forward and set-off without any time limit. The High Court also referenced similar decisions by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and Pr. CIT v. Gunnebo India (P.) Ltd., and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. G.T.M. Synthetics Ltd., all of which supported the view that unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward beyond eight years under the amended provisions. In conclusion, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and affirmed its view, dismissing the appeal and answering the substantial questions of law against the revenue. The connected application was also dismissed.
|
