THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. STEELCO GUJARAT LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/836/2019HC GujaratGJHC24066099201913 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues raised in the appeal were no longer res integra. It noted that these issues were squarely covered by the Court's own decision in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj). The Court also observed that the ITAT had relied on this very decision when dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The ratio decidendi is that the law laid down in General Motors India (P) Ltd. governs the present case, allowing the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated December 21, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad 'A' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2008-2009 and concerns the assessee, Steelco Gujarat Ltd. The core of the dispute is the ITAT's decision allowing the assessee's claim to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation from assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 against the profits of assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue is aggrieved by this allowance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in law and facts by allowing the assessee's claim to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation from assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 against the profits of assessment year 2008-09? 2. Whether the ITAT erred by allowing the claim without appreciating that the language of Section 32(2) is clear and unambiguous, and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, was prospective from April 1, 2002? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in allowing the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight assessment years, contravening Section 32(2) as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, effective April 1, 1997? 4. Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the Revenue's appeal and allowing the assessee's claim by relying on the decision in General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj), without appreciating that the amendment to Section 32(2) constituted 'casus omissus' as held in S.P. Gupta v. President of India and ACIT Vs. Velliappa Textile Ltd.? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years against the profits of assessment year 2008-09. They contended that the provisions of Section 32(2) and its amendments, particularly the Finance Act, 2001, and Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, restrict such carry forward and set off. The Revenue also argued that the ITAT's reliance on General Motors India (P) Ltd. was misplaced, especially in light of the 'casus omissus' principle established in Supreme Court decisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 32(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/836/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 836 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus STEELCO GUJARAT LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 13/01/2020

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Act, 1961 (for short the “Act”) at the instance of Revenue and it is directed against the order   dated   21.12.2019   passed   by   the   Income   Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “A” Bench, Ahmedabad in the ITA No.328/AHD/2015 for the assessment year 2008­ 2009. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law as the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:­ “2(a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of carry

forward

and

set­off

unabsorbed depreciation   of   assessment   years   1995­96   to 1999­2000 against the profit of assessment year Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/836/2019 ORDER 2008­09?” (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, learned ATAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of carry forward   and   set­off   unabsorbed   depreciation   of assessment year 1995­96 to 1999­2000 against the profits   of   assessment   year   2008­09   without appreciating the fact that the language of the sub­section   (2)   of   Section   32   is   clear   and unambiguous   and   the   amendment   in   the   said section   by   Finance   Act,   2001   was   prospective w.e.f. 01.04.2002? (c)   Whether   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on   facts   in   allowing   the   assessee   benefit   of carry   forward   and   set   off   of   unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 1995­96 to 1999­ 2000   beyound   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? (d)   Whether   on   the   facts   and   in   the circumstances   of   the   case   and   in   law,   the Tribunal   was   justified   in   dismissing   the departments   appeal   and   allowing   the   assessee's claim   of   carry   forward   and   set­off   unabsorbed depreciation   of   assessment   years   1995­96   to 1999­2000 against the profits of assessment year 2008­09 by relying on the decision in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj) without appreciating the fact that   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   has   given   a construction to the language of the amendment to the provision of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act which actually amount to “casus omissus” as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Gupta v. President of India [AIR 1982 SC 149] & ACIT Vs. Velliappa Textile Ltd. Appeal (Crl) 142 of 19947 dated 16.09.2003.” 4.   Mr.Varun   Patel,   the   learned   standing   counsel appearing   for   the   Revenue   very   fairly   pointed   out that the issues raised in the present appeal are no Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/836/2019 ORDER longer  res­integra  as those are squarely  covered by decision of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj). 5. We   also  take   the   notice   of  the   fact  that   the very same decision has been referred and relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by   the   Revenue,   and   thereby,   confirming   the   order passed by the CIT(Appeals). 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) GIRISH Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 32(2)

All 321 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →