9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO in computing the profit or loss of the year considered and deducted the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier assessment year 1972-73 first and then the unabsorbed development rebate of the year 1971-72 to the extent required for absorbing the balance of income. The balance of the unabsorbed development rebate of the year 1971-72 and the unabsorbed development rebate for the subsequent years up to 1974-75 were carried forward. On 24-1-1979, the ITO passed an order purporting to rectify the assessment order dated 9-2-1978 on the ground that the unabsorbed development rebate should have actually been given set off first and then the unabsorbed depreciation. He, therefore, revised the priorities between the unabsorbed development rebate an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g out that according to the provisions of the law, the original order passed was the correct one and the revision subsequently made was clearly a mistake. He further negatived the assessee's contention that the issue was also controversial and debatable one. He also relied on the decision in the case of R. A. Boga v. AAC [1977] 110 ITR 1 (Punj. Har.) (FB). Aggrieved by his order, the assessee is in further appeal. 2. The learned representative for the assessee vehemently contended that the order passed by the ITO on 24-1-1979 cannot be said to disclose any mistake apparent from record. In this connection, the learned representative for the assessee strongly relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Monogram Mills Co. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nguage of the section, it cannot amount to a debatable question of law, on which two views are reasonably possible. 3. On a consideration of the facts and the contentions of the parties, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the assessee's appeal. According to us, on a proper interpretation and construction of the provisions touching on the question of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, there can be no two opinions that the unabsorbed depreciation has to be considered before considering the question of unabsorbed development rebate for the purpose of the set off. The provisions of section 32(2) of the Act clearly provide that the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years has to be added to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order seeking to rectify the original assessment cannot lie as it could not be said that the original assessment discloses any apparent mistake capable of rectification under section 154. Therefore, it is obviously a mistake to seek to rectify the earlier assessment and it is this mistake which is sought to be rectified by the later order, which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, find no merit in the assessee's objection, which is rejected. 4. The assessee in an additional ground filed on 6-2-1985 seeks to raise a dispute on the merits of the question as to whether it is unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate, which should get priority. It is stated that the omission to raise this additional gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
