JAI USHIN LTD Vs. DY CIT
LAWS(IT)-2008-1-16
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 25,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.M. Jagtap, A.M. - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner -III, New Delhi dated 24th Aug., 2006.
(2.) In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the action of the learned CITtA) in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making adjustment of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for assessment year 1999-2000 against income from house property and in not allowing the same to be carried forward to the subsequent years. The assessee in this case is a public limited company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of auto components. A return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 27-11- 2003 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,03,740. In the computation of total income filed along with the said return, income from business and income from house property was shown at Rs. 1,41,43,875 and Rs. 22,03,740 respectively and after adjusting carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1999-2000 against the business income to the extent of Rs. 1,41,43,875, total income was declared at Rs. 22.03,740 which represented income from house property. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that there was still sufficient amount of unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1999-2000 available to the assessee which was liable to be set off against the income from house property as per the provisions of Section 32(2) amended with effect from 1-4-2002. As the said amended provisions of Section 32(2), according to the assessing officer, were applicable in the present case involving assessment year 2003-04, he set off the unabsorbed depreciation for assessment year 1999-2000 against the income of the assessee from'house property for the year under consideration amounting to Rs. 22,03,740 and computed its income at nil. The matter was carried before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and it was submitted on behalf of the assessee before him that as per the provisions of Section 32(2} applicable for assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02, the unabsorbed depreciation for assessment year 1999-2000 was available for set off only against the business income and the same, therefore, could not have been set off against income from house property for the year under consideration as done by the assessing officer. This submission of the assessee was not found acceptable by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). According to him, while framing the assessment for assessment year 2003-04, the provisions of Section 32(2) as applicable to that year were liable to be taken into account by the assessing officer and since as per the provisions of Section 32(2) so applicable, the unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years was liable to be set off against income under any head, he held that the assessing officer was fully justified in setting off the unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1999-2000 against income from house property for the year under consideration. He accordingly upheld the action of the assessing officer on this issue.
(3.) BEFORE us, the learned departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below in support of the revenue 's case. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, mainly reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the assessee before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He also relied on the decision of Chennai Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Southern Travels v. Asstt CIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Chennai)(SB) 750 : (2006) 103 ITD 198 (Chennai)(SB) as well as on the decision of Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Keshwa Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ (Chd) 446 : (2006) 100 ITD 365 (Chd).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.