9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arpur Collieries Co. vs. CIT, Poona (92 ITR 219). The departmental rep. has, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in ET Wire Products vs. Union of India and others (92 ITR 459) and of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gardon Silk Wvh. Factory (101 ITR 658). In the above decisions relied upon by the departmental rep. it has been clearly held that the unabsorbed depreciation of the firm is to be allocated to the partners and after such allocation there is no question of the same being set off against the income of the firm for the subsequent year. The Gujarat High Court has referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court referred to above, but has not followed it. The Tribunal has been following the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Bombay High Court it was clear that the conclusion of the Tribunal was erroneous and should be construed as having been erroneous even at the time it was rendered. For this proposition he relied on the ratio of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd., vs. D.R. Trivedi,(4) the decision of the Madras High Court in N. Kuppanna Gounder vs. IAC (CT)(5) and the decision of the Madras High Court in K.S. Gopalaswami Iyer vs. Sales Tax Tribunal.(6) 5. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, submitted that on the date the Tribunal passed its order, the judgment of the Madras High Court was not available and the Tribunal chose the view taken by one of the High Courts in preferen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was brought to the notice of the Commissioner when the revision petition was pending before him and as he has failed to give effect to it, there was an error of law apparent from the face of the records. In the present case, on the day on which the Tribunal passed its order, i.e., 17th Feb., 1978, there was no decision available of the Madras High Court. As a matter of fact, there were decisions available of the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts which took one view and of the Bombay High Court, which took another view. In view of the differences of opinion between the various High Courts, it was clear that the issue was a highly debatable one. The Tribunal followed the view taken by the Bombay High Court. The Madras High Court has approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
