PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 4 vs. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD

Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgement and order dated 5.9.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad passed in ITA No.206/Ahd/2015 for A.Y.2005- 06, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT  (A) in allowing the Assessee benefit of carry forward and set off all unabsorded depreciation for the A.Ys. 1995-96 and 1996-97 beyond the period of eight assessment years in contravention of applicable provisions being Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. The Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed questions of law: “2(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the cse, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee benefit of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the A.Ys. 1995-96 & 1996-97 beyond the period of eight assessment years in contravention of applicable provisions being section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1st April, 1997? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law?”

Heard Mr. Varun Patel, learned Counsel appearing on C/TAXAP/688/2018 JUDGMENT behalf of the appellant-Revenue. So far as the proposed this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Itegra Engineering India Ltd. rendered in Tax Appeal No.380/2013. Under the circumstances, so far as the proposed question of law No. 2(a) is concerned, the said issue is now not res integra in view of the binding decision of Division Bench of this Court.

Now so far as the proposed question 2 (b) is concerned, namely whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, as question 2(a) is answered against the Revenue in the said case, the said question would become academic and therefore, we do not decide the same.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) (A.Y. KOGJE, J) NAIR SMITA V.