TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion or intimation of the losses. That apart keeping in view the provisions of Clause II to sub-section (3) of Section 153, the period of limitation is not applicable to the proceedings consequent upon the orders of appellate or revisional authorities. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of Ld. CIT(A).- Decided against revenue - ITA Nos. 3635, 3636, 3637 & 3638 Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee S/sh. (Dr.) Rakesh Gupta Somil Aggarwal, Advocates For The Department Sh. B.D. Mishra, CIT(DR) ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M.: The present appeals filed by the Revenue are directed aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) vide order dated 29th January, 2003 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, pursuant to the application made under section 154 of the Act dated 4th July, 2003, the Assessing Officer had quantified the brought forward business losses of ₹ 29,87,04,563/- and unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 4,91,27,891/- vide order dated 4th December, 2003. Thereafter, pursuant to the re-assessment notice under Section 148 of the Act, the reassessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2005 at a total income of ₹ 18,75,86,422/- before set off of brought forward losses. On appeal before the CIT(A), the learned CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is to be for an amount of ₹ 4,91,27,891/- as granted by A.O. or for an amount of ₹ 12,74, 14,023/- claimed by the appellant. 3.1 The A.O. has given following two reasons in the assessment order for not accepting the claim of assessee. i) the issue of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation was not the subject matter of the order dated 16-03-2005 passed by A.D. uls 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act and ii) the claim of unabsorbed depreciation was revised by the A.O. vide order passed uls 154/143(3) on 04-12-2003 and since four years had elapsed from this date and therefore the rectification application filed by the assessee was bared by time. On the other hand, the Appellant has cited following reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is correct and he can duly reconcile it with the assessment records of the past years. Further, it is noted that Exp. 5 of Section 32 reads as under:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in computing his total income. 3.3 It is further seen that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd. (276 ITR 521) has held that it is the duty of AO to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 3.4. In view of the above facts and legal position on the issue I am of the view that the A.O. was duty bound to grant the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at correct amount as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anner. Being aggrieved by the above order, the Revenue is before us with the present appeals. 3. The grievance of the Revenue appears to be that the application filed by the respondent assessee company is barred by limitation. To adjudicate the issue in appeal, it is relevant to extract below the provisions of Section 157 and Clause II to sub-section (3) of Section 153 of the Act: Section 157. When, in the course of the assessment of the total income of any assessee, it is established that a loss has taken place which the assessee is entitled to have carried forward and set off under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 72, sub-section (2) of section 73, sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 or sub-section ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
