TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument was filed. These appeals are, therefore, decided on the basis of materials on the file and after considering the written argument and hearing the ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.). 3. The assessee is a Private Limited Company which derives income from printing newspapers for Prabhat Khabar. 4. The returns for the three years in question were filed on 17-3-1988 declaring losses of Rs. 2,96,157, Rs. 2,72,950 and Rs. 7,04,450 respectively. The assessments were completed on total losses of Rs. 2,67,340 and Rs. 35,999 for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively and on a total income of Rs. 1,25,380 for assessment year 1987-88. These computations were made after considering depreciation of Rs. 3,93,997, Rs. 3,37,846 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal for all the three years probably because the ld. CIT(A)'s finding regarding unabsorbed depreciation in 1985-86 would have consequential effect in the assessment 1986-87 and 1987-88. 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.) submitted before us that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was erroneous inasmuch as sections 72 and 139(3) were equally applicable to unabsorbed depreciation because it was part of the losses. She relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Garden Silk Wvg. Factory v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 512/56 Taxman 4K. 8. In the written submission filed on behalf of the assessee it has been submitted that section 72 refers to the business loss the concept of which was different from the concept of depreciation allowance u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome the assessee can set off unabsorbed portion of depreciation of that year against the income of succeeding year." ----------------------------------------------------------------- 9. We have given careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions and contentions of the rival parties. we have also carefully perused the relevant sections. We are inclined to agree with the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was entitled to carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation despite the fact that the return for assessment year 1985-86 was not filed within the time allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Garden Silk Wvg. Factory 's case , relied upon by the ld. D.R., is relevant. But the facts of that case were not similar and were distinguishable. The issue involved in that case was also not similar. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations in that case are not applicable in the present case. 12. The special treatment for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) of the Act places the matter in different shape from the common commercial and accounting principles. 13. In the above view of the matter we hold that the unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 1985-86 was eligible for carry forward as per section 32(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
