9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case the as well as in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance of brought forward depreciation to Rs. 87,92,149/- as against Rs. 4,19,90,966/- made by the A.O. 2. The Ld CIT(A) ignored the findings recorded by the A.O. and the fact that the assessee did not set of the losses on account of depreciation against the income claimed exempt u/s 10B of the I.T. Act earned during the tax holiday period. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 1.1 ITA No. 3706/Del/2013 has been preferred by the assessee on the following grounds:- "The appellant seeks to take the following grounds in app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /04/2017. However, on 25th of May 2017 also the assessee requested an adjournment. Thus, it is very much evident that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals and, therefore, we deem it fit to hear the appeals ex parte qua the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was carrying out the business of processing of woollen yarn and exporting the same during the year under consideration. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 16,86,617/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 7,83,630/- after making disallowance of Rs. 24,39,930/- on account of commission and Rs. 30,317/- on account of agricultural expenses and also disallowing to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 4,19,90,666/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard unabsorbed depreciation up to assessment year 01 - 02 amounting to Rs. 1,96,32,702/-. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of 87,92,149/- pertaining to the years prior to assessment year 2000 - 01 was not eligible to be carried forward and has allowed partial relief to the assessee . It is seen that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has not appreciated the amendment to section 10B of the Act in its correct perspective. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kei Industries Ltd. (dated 13 March, 2015) and CIT v. TEI Technologies (P) Ltd (ITA No. 347/2011 & 2067/2010) and for proper adjudication of this issue it is required that these two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the AO has not questioned the genuineness of the payments but has raised query on the genuineness of the services rendered by the persons receiving commission. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has noted that the assessee was asked to file details of services rendered by the recipients of the commission, the rate at which commission was paid, the qualifications of the commission agents and the details of the sales booked through them so as to examine the genuineness of the claim pertaining to payment of commission. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further noted that the assessee did not submit the required information and, therefore, the disallowance was being confirmed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) had raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
