9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment Year 2002-03 onwards. No decision contrary to the decision of the Gujarat High Court [ 2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has been shown to us. No substantial question of law. - ITA No. 647/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2022 - SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal AR Revenue by : Shri S P Walimbe DR ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune, dated 05.10.2016 for the A.Y. 2010-11 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short the Act ). The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m amounting to Rs.5,51,64,748/- pertaining to AY 2000-01 2001-02 rejected by the AO and confirmed by 1st appellate authority pertaining to unabsorbed depreciation is improper, unjustified contrary to the facts provisions of law prevailing in the case of the appellant. It may further be held that no disallowance / addition is warranted in the case of the appellant. The addition / so made and confirmed by the Ld. Appellate Authority below be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 4. The appellant prays that the appeal be allowed condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 5. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business income of Rs.6,51,86,046/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) held it as under: The various judgments relied upon by the appellant and the AO and the binding principles of precedents have been taken into consideration. The Gujarat High Court has decided the matter on purposive and harmonious interpretation of the Act while the ITAT Special Bench has decided matter on the strict interpretation of the law. The strict interpretation appears to be the most logical way of interpreting the fiction created in the sec.32(2). I am therefore inclined to rely upon the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in Times Guaranty Ltd. Therefore the action of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the ITO would be bound by a decision of the Supreme Court as also by a decision of the High Court of the State within whose jurisdiction he is(functioning), irrespective of the pendency of any appeal or special leave application against that judgment. He would be bound by a decision of another High Court on the point, because not to follow that decision would be to cause grave prejudice to the assessee. 6. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has erred grossly in not following the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. 6.1. However, the issue of the set off of carry forward unabsorbed depreciation has been held in favour of the assessee by even jurisdictional Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Hindusthan Unilever Ltd [2016] 72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, the Circular No. 14 of 2001 issued by the CBDT clarifies that restriction of eight years to carry forward and set off the unabsorbed depreciation has been dispensed with. Consequently, unabsorbed depreciation for the intervening periods between assessment 1997-98 upto 2001-02, if available in the assessment year 2002-03 would be allowable as part of carried forward depreciation from Assessment Year 2002- 03 onwards. No decision contrary to the decision of the Gujarat High Court has been shown to us. It is clarified that although the decision of the Gujarat High Court was rendered in context of reopening notice it has also examined the issue on merits and drew support from the CBDT circular which is beneficial to the assessee to conclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
