DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI vs. AJMERA CEMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

I have heard the parties and perused the record. The Assessing Officer held that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 cannot be set-off against the current year’s income, on the reasoning that the provisions of Sec. 32(2) of the Act, prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, had provided a time limit of 8 years for carrying forward the unabsorbed amount of depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (Special Civil Application No. 1773 of 2012) dt. 23.8.2012. The Ld. CIT(A) also noticed that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the above said case has been followed by the coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Arch Fine Chemicals P. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 2414 & 2415/Mum/2012 dt. 9.10.2013). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow set-off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from Assessment Years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 and allow carry forward of balance remaining after set-off. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal before us.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed heavy reliance on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court as well as the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. On the contrary, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Having heard the rival contentions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), since he has decided

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.