9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully all material facts. In that view of the matter, merely because the claim was not previously processed during the scrutiny assessment or that such claim was perhaps legally not sustainable, would not vest the jurisdiction in Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 401 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2013 - AKIL KURESHI AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y from 01/04/2002?" 2. From the questions, it can be seen that there are two clear parts of the appeal. First is with respect to validity of the reopened proceedings. Second question pertains to the Tribunal's decision on the question of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Assessment for assessment year 2006-2007 of the respondent assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f relevant assessment year. Original assessment was framed after scrutiny. Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons for issuing notice for reopening : "The return of income declaring NIL income after adjusting brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.95,17,604/- including unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.68,36,912/- of AY 1997-98 filed by the assessee on 26.12.06. the assessment w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which allowance was first determined. As unabsorbed depreciation was of A.Y. 1997-98. Thus, in view of provisions of section 32 [2(iii) (b) ] , it was eligible for set off till AY 2 005-06. (1997-98 + eight years) . Thus due to irregular set off of unabsorbed depreciation of AY 1997-98 in AY 2006-07 resulted in underas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the end of relevant assessment year. 6. The Tribunal therefore, in our opinion, committed no error in declaring that the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were invalid. 7. That being the position, the Revenue's tax appeal must fail. 8. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in upholding the assessee's claim for carry forward of unabsorbed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
