9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), was justified in allowing the benefit of carry forward losses and depreciation relating to earlier years, even though the running of hotel was handed over by the court to the court receiver ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake apparent on the record, where in fact, the Assessing Officer sought to rectify the said mistake based on the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), Belgaum on October 29, 1993, declining to grant benefit to the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88, of carry forward of depreciation, losses, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses as the business was not carried on by the assessee-company but by the court receiver, which was decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Belgaum on October 29, 1993. (v) Based on the aforesaid order, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 154 of the Act for the assessment year referred to above but withdrew the benefit of carry forward depreciation on business losses which, in fact, was earlier allowed, on the purported ground that it was a mistake apparent from the record. The said order dated January 19, 1994 passed by the Deputy Collector, Special Range, Panaji is at exhibit C of paper book. 3. The above facts are taken from one of the appeals but it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed under section 143(1)(a)/143(3), by passing orders under section 154 was therefore totally unwarranted and patently wrong. It was further submitted that the appellant had been running its hotel business right since its inception. There was no stoppage or cessation of the business by the appellant. In view of these facts it was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in withdrawing the appellant's claim of depreciation and losses relating to earlier years by rectifying the orders passed under section 143(1)(a)/143(3) of the Act. After carefully considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant I find considerable force in them. The appellant's claim of set-off of losses and depreciation pertaining to the earlier yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these facts I am of the considered opinion that there was no mistake apparent from records which warranted rectification. Even on the merits the appellant was entitled to carry forward and set-off of losses and depreciation relating to the earlier years. The hotel business was started by the appellant with effect from May 6, 1981, after running the hotel for some time, the appellant entered into an agreement on June 22, 1983 with UTC Tourist Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of running of the hotel. During the period from July 1, 1984 to August 24, 1984 the hotel was run under the agreement with UTC Tourist P. Ltd. As UTC Tourist Pvt. Ltd. was not fulfilling the terms of the agreement, a suit was filed by the appellant in the court on July 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is at exhibit E of the paper book which is reproduced below : "We have considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions of law relating to allowance of benefits of brought forward unabsorbed business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as well as the scope of the provisions of section 154 of the Act and after careful consideration are of the opinion that the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the assessment year 1987-88 relating to carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representative having not refuted the observations and findings, which are based on facts, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the merits also." 6. In the backdrop of these facts, the present appeals are filed before this court. 7. Heard learned counsel Shri S. R. Rivonkar for the appellant and Shri R.G. Ramani for the respondent. 8. For the reasons set out in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as reproduced in the aforesaid paragraphs, we are of the considered view that no substantial question of law much less, the question of law is involved in these appeals. As far as the questions raised as (A), (B) and (C) we are of the view that in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
