|The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0286 (Mad-HC) : (2021) 431 ITR 0083
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Where Supreme Court, in case of CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [2019 (103) Taxmann.com 32(SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1798 (SC)] held that unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 can be carry forward and adjusted after the lapse of eight assessment years in view of the section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001, therefore, following the case of Apex Court appeal should be allowed and order passed by Tribunal was liable to be set aside.
Search and seizure - Assessment under section 153C - Unabsorbed depreciation - Carry very of un absorbed depreciation to the assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 pertaining adjusted after the lapse fo eight assessment years
A search was conducted under section 132 and later, a notice under section 153C was issued on assessee, however, there was no seizure of assessee and no unaccounted assets were found. Books of account of assessee, which was seized by the department during the search, continued to remain with them. Assessee was called upon to produce all vouchers and documents and all available vouchers were produced, however, department had not returned back the same to assessee. As against the order passed by AO, assessee raised the plea of jurisdiction to complete the assessment under section 153A read with section 147. With regard to dis-allowance on gains on slump sale and omission to set off business loss, assessee raised a plea that the sale of business assets though computed under head income from capital gains, sale would partake the character of business income and accordingly, would be eligible for set off against business losses brought forward. Held: Supreme Court, in its Judgment reported in CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd [2019 (103) Taxmann.com 32(SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1798 (SC)] held that unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 can be carry forward and adjusted after the lapse of eight assessment years in view of the section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. Assessee also submitted that questions of law raised in the present Tax Case Appeal was covered by decisions of Apex Court, hence, the Tax Case Appeal should be allowed. Therefore, order passed by Tribunal was liable to be set aside.
Followed:CIT v. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. TCA. No.358 of 2018 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3852 (Mad-HC), CIT v. S&S Power Switchcear Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 402 (Mad-HC), Harvey Heart Hospitals Ltd. v. ACIT 2010 TaxPub(DT) 324 (Chen-Trib) and CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. 2019 (103) Taxmann.com 32 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1798 (SC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2005-06
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT