Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE
2009, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s Order No.CIT(A)-2/ 103/2014-15, dated 13.08.2018, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in allowing claim of assessee to carry forward of business loss and set off unabsorbed depreciation Rs.20,19,09,580/- relating to earlier years i.e. 1995- 96 to AY 1999-2000 contrary to judgment in the case of CIT -vs- Pioneer Aisa Packing (P) Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 1981 in which it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1/4/1997 could be set off against the business income or income under any other head for AY 1997-98 and seven subsequent AYs.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur has erred in interpreting the amended provisions of section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Finance Act 2001. 3. Any other ground which may be raised during the course of hearing.”
Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reversing the assessment findings thereby accepting the assessee’s claim of carry forward of business loss and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation in question pertaining to the assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 as under :
3 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 4 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 5 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 6 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
Mr. Kanojiya vehemently argued in favour of the Revenue’s pleadings that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in accepting the assessee’s foregoing carry forward of business losses and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation claim thereby applying the amended provisions in sec.32(2) vide Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect. We find no substance in Revenue’s instant sole grievance once it has come on record that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd., [2019] 103 taxmann.com 31 (Bom.) has already declined the department’s arguments. The same has also been upheld in hon’ble apex court’s decision in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 32 (SC). That being the case, we find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance. Rejected accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.