9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, Senior DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM This appeal is by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A)-Ujjain, dated 16.12.2009 on the ground whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the assessment made by the A.O. as infructuous, without appreciating the fact that otherwise on 6.3.2006 (the date of issue of notice) the A.O. was empowered to issue notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2002-03, in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(a) read with section 151(1) of the IT Act, 1961? 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard Shri S.S. Deshpande, ld. Counsel for the assessee and Shri P.K. Mitra, learned Senior DR. The crux of argument is that the tax e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... monetary limit, therefore, the department is not permitted to file this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself. However, the learned Sr. DR fairly agreed that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit. 3. We have considered the rival submissions of ld. representatives of both sides and perused the material available on record. In view of the above assertion of the learned respective counsels, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. Our view finds support from the decision dated 2nd December, 2009 of the Tribunal in the case of Himanshu Floor Mills (ITA No. 507/Ind/2009). The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder :- This a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The depreciation on all the assets was regularly allowed since the date of inclusion in the balance sheet. Even in the impugned order there is a factual finding that the assessee from the date of inclusion has not shown in addition to the block of assets as the WDV as on 31.3.2002 was taken as basis after reducing the sale of some assets for the calculation of allowable depreciation for the assessment year 2003-04 and the assessee was allowed depreciation for the assessment year 2002- 03. The revenue has not adduced any evidence controverting the factual finding mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, the disallowance is desirable in the impugned appeal. Even otherwise on the tax effect this appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court 4,00,000/- 3 Supreme Court 10,00,000/- The Board further clarified the tax effect, which means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable, had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issue against which appeal is intended to be filed. However, the tax will not include any interest thereon. In cases of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. In the present appeal, the total disputed addition is ₹ 3,94,732/-, therefore, as agreed/canvassed by ld. represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat proof of last years losses was not furnished by the assessee consequently these are not allowable whereas before the learned first appellate authority there is a factual finding that in all previous years returns were duly filed by the assessee and the same were available on record of the Assessing Officer. In the impugned order the learned first appellate authority has directed the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years which were not set off after verification of records of earlier years. Even otherwise, it is a case of assessed loss which has not been set off. Consequently, we are in agreement that in view of the provisions of section 72 it should be allowed. Consequently, there is no gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
