9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction u/s.263 by the Ld.CIT, the twin conditions, i.e. (a) order is erroneous and (b) order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be satisfied. In the instant case, since the unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation loss which has to be carried forward for subsequent years has been quantified in the order passed u/s.143(3) dated 31-12-2008 for A.Y. 2006-07 and since the AO has simply followed that order while giving set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss for the A.Y. 2007-08, therefore, the order in our opinion cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, the twin conditions are not satisfied. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 17.03.2009 declaring loss of ₹ 33,66,81,931/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and order under section 143(3) was passed on 23.12.2009 on a total loss of ₹ 86,61,76,064/-. Subsequently, it was noticed that unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 1997-98 to 2001-02 amounting to ₹ 87,08,64,394/- was wrongly allowed. Accordingly, the order passed under section 143(3) was set-aside under section 263 of the Act. Thereafter, order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed on 30.07.2012, in which brought forward depreciation for A.Ys. 1997-98 to 2004-05 amounting to ₹ 87,08,64,394/- was withdrawn. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sorbed depreciation to the extent of ₹ 87,08,64,394/- for A.Y. 2007-08. According to Ld. CIT, the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the A.Yrs. 1974-75 to 1996-97 cannot be carried forward more than 8 years, i.e. beyond A.Y. 2004-05 in this case. We find the order u/s.143(3) has been passed for A.Y. 2006-07 determining the unabsorbed depreciation and business loss that has to be carried forward the details of which are already given at para 4 of the impugned order. Therefore, the mistake, if any, has crept in the order for A.Y. 2006-07 and certainly not in the order for A.Y. 2007- 08. The AO has simply followed the order of his predecessor giving effect to the quantum of brought forward loss to be set off from the income of the cur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
