9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .DR, unabsorbed depreciation and carry forward of losses is governed u/s 32(2) and S.72(2) of the Act. Order of Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference with regard to carry forward and setting off unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years, the assessee had rightly claimed for setting off the unabsorbed depreciation from the income from other sources. We uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and passing of order u/s 154 by the A.O. is not justified because there is no mistake apparent on record. Therefore we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No. 5548/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2017 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L. P. Sahu, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT ( DR ) Respondent by : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 13.5.2009 observed that there was difference of opinion as to whether unabsorbed business loss of earlier years was to be taken at ₹ 5,25,91,692/- and brought forward depreciation for all the years taken together and consolidated figure of unabsorbed depreciation and allow the lower of these two to the extent of adjusted net profit. 2.1. Thereafter the Ld.AO suo motto issued notice u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that income from other sources cannot be set off from brought forward losses and the same was not allowable. He also observed that in the audited balance sheet Schedule XV the assessee had shown other income giving the following sub heads. Lease rent income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought forward losses of depreciation of earlier years can be set off from the income from other sources, the assessee has shown other income of ₹ 12,184,164/- as stated (supra) under different heads. The assessee has justified before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding lease rent income of ₹ 10,718,878/- and misc. Income of ₹ 456,688/- reasons for showing under the head other income of the balance sheet which cannot be controverted by the Ld.DR, unabsorbed depreciation and carry forward of losses is governed u/s 32(2) and S.72(2) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly discussed the issue in detail in his order as under. 5.3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. AR and perused the order passed by the AO. I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1996-97, and the same can be set-off of against the taxable business profit or income under any other head, which in the instant case is income from house property. Accordingly, we reverse the finding and conclusion of both the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to allow setting off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward up to the assessment year 1996-97. We direct accordingly I further find that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Escorts Electronics Ltd. v CIT [2002] 124 Taxman 718 (Delhi) has held as under: 6. Since, in our opinion, the issue, subject-matter of the first question, stands answered by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Virmani Industries (P) Ltd. [1995] 2161TR 607, we deem it unne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 555 and Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 1151TR 777, wherein it was observed that the unabsorbed depreciation was not only to be set off against other heads of income in the relevant previous year but where it is carried forward, it 'stands exactly on the same footing as the current depreciation'. Thus, reiterating the view expressed in the afore-noted decisions, in Virmani Industries (P) Ltd's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that though on the first impression the expression 'profits or gains chargeable' appears to refer only to profits or gains of business or profession chargeable under section 28 but in view of the said decisions, the said expression is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
