COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II LUDHIANA vs. M/S NATIONAL AUTO ROADLINES CARRIER

ITA/377/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093304201009 May 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'B'. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2004-05 and concerned the issue of setting off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the current year. During the proceedings before the High Court, the assessee's counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer had passed an order dated 08.07.2016 under Section 154 of the Act concerning unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years. The assessee's counsel proposed that the ITAT's order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the issue for assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to this proposal.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the submissions made by both parties, decided to set aside the order of the ITAT and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Court noted that the assessee had brought to its notice an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act concerning unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years. The assessee's counsel proposed that the matter be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on the issue of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue's counsel did not object to this proposal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order of the ITAT and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of unabsorbed depreciation relating to the assessment year 2004-05 afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. No specific finding was given on the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and upholding the order of CIT(A) by holding that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against the income of the current year under any head including income under the head short term capital gain, ignoring the provisions of section 32(2) read with Section 72(2) and 73(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that an order dated 08.07.2016 had been passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act concerning unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years. Based on this development, the assessee proposed that the matter be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of unabsorbed depreciation for the current year 2004-05 in accordance with law. Revenue's contention: The Revenue's counsel had no objection to the assessee's proposal for remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 32(2),Section 72(2),Section 73(3),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.377 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.05.2017

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana ----Appellant Versus M/s National Auto Roadline Carriers ----Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu Present: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Advocate for the appellant-Revenue. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent-assessee. ***** Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' in ITA No.562/Chd/2008, for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and upholding the order of CIT(A) by holding that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against the income of the current year under any head including income under the head short term capital gain ignoring the provisions of section 32(2) read with Section 72(2) and 73(3) of the Inco

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →