9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed denied - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT VS. Times Guaranty Ltd[ 2010 (6) TMI 516 - ITAT, MUMBAI] However, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has ruled in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd. [ 2021 (7) TMI 849 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Therefore, respectfully, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd. We hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance and allow setting off of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. - ITA No. 4446/Del/2018 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing AO's order invoking section 154 of the Act to make disallowance u/s. 32(2) when the said issue is highly debatable and therefore, the order passed u/s. 154 is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set aside. 5. That the CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no mistake apparent from record which could have been rectified u/s. 154 by the AO hence the order passed u/s. 154 is beyond the scope of the said scheme, hence the same is liable to be set aside. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of AO disallowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to ₹ 3,83,54,673/- claimed for A.Y. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99 again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the subject Assessment Year. As per the said notice, the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to ₹ 3,83,54,673/- for Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99 against the profits of Assessment Year 2007-08 was stated to be a mistake apparent from record. Since in view of the AO, the unabsorbed depreciation as on 31.03.1997 and the period starting from 1997-98 to 2001-02 was allowed to be carried forward for eight Assessment Years only. Hence, the AO proceeded to pass an order u/s. 154 of the Act, dated 16.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2007-08 wherein the set off of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99 was denied. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the order sought to be amended was passed. 11. A plain reading of the Section makes it clear no order can be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the Financial Year in which orders sought to be amended was passed. In this case, the Assessing Officer sought to amend the order dated 25/3/2013. Hence, the limitation would start from1/4/2014 and would expire on 31st March, 2017. However, impugned order is dated 16/3/2016. Therefore, the grounds of the assessee are devoid of any merit. Hence, dismissed. 12. Ground No. 6 7 are on merit of the disallowance of depreciation by the Ld. CIT(A). 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) declined the claim of the assessee by relying upon the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
