ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. DUNLOP INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1984/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 March 2019AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the AO to examine and determine the eligible unabsorbed depreciation for set off and carry forward as per Section 32(2) of the amended Finance Act, 2001.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order allowing set off and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, so the appeal was decided ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing set off and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, and how such depreciation should be treated under Section 32(2) of the amended Finance Act, 2001.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Hearing: 28/03/2019Pronounced: 29/03/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 31.03.2014.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows:

M/s Dunlop India Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 a. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in allowing set off and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 7,76,12,179/- for the A.Y. 1994-95 to 2010-11, which was disallowed by the A.O. b. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.

3. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963.

4.

After hearing the ld. DR for the revenue and having gone through the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) we are of the view that there is no any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to examine and determine the amount of absorbed depreciation available to the assessee for carry forward as on 01.04.2002 and treat the same in accordance with section 32(2) of the Amended Finance Act, 2001. Therefore, the AO was directed by the ld. CIT(A) to determine the absorbed depreciation eligible for set off in the impugned year and thereafter the carry forward to subsequent year as per direction given by the ld. CIT(A). We quote here the concluding remark of the ld. CIT(A) for ready reference which is given below: “In view of the above direction of the Jurisdictional Tribunal the Assessing Officer is directed to determine the amount of unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee for carry forward as on 01.04.2001 and treat the same in accordance with section 32(2) of the amended Finance Act, 2001. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to determine the unabsorbed depreciation eligible for set off in the impugned year and thereafter carry forward to subsequent years as per directions above.” We note that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order after considering the provision of section 32(2) and judicial precedent available on the subject, therefore we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) are M/s Dunlop India Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 correct and admit no interference by us. We approve and confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 29.03.2019

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 →