TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Out of five grounds raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal, ground Nos.1 5 do not survive for consideration as they are general in nature. The remaining three grounds relate to a solitary ground, namely, that the CIT (A) had erred in holding that the re-opening of the assessment by invoking the provisions of s.147 of the Act are permissible under the law. A.Y. 2006-07: 3. Likewise, for this A.Y also, the assessee has raised five grounds, out of which, ground Nos. 1 5 being general, they need no adjudication. In the remaining three grounds, the assessee s grievance is that the CIT (A) erred in holding that invoking of provisions of s. 154 of the Act was valid in a situation where there was no mistake apparent fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts original return filed earlier as the return filed in response to the said notice. Subsequently, the assessee had objected to the re-opening of the assessment through a letter. After elaborately discussing the issue coupled with extensively quoting the amendment to s. 32(2) of the Act and for the reasons recorded in his impugned order, the AO had rejected the assessee s claim for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation loss of assessment years 1994-95 and 95-96 and concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) r. w. s. 147 of the Act bringing to tax the entire claim of the assessee of ₹ 81,70,140/-. A.Y. 2006-07: 6.2. The assessee s return of income furnished declaring a total income of ₹ 27.75 lakhs was, initially, processed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed depreciation of 1995-96 and 1996-97 against the profits of AY 2006-07. 7.1. Aggrieved, the Revenue has come up with the present appeals. It was submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the CIT (A) was not justified in directing the AO to allow set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of the AYs 1994-95 and 1995-96 against the income of 2005-06 without appreciating the fact that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case relied upon by the CIT (A), did not decide the issue in favour of that assessee, instead, the Hon ble Court had remitted the issue back to the AO to decide afresh, keeping the amendments in s. 32 of the Act etc., It was, further, urged that though the CIT (A) had agreed with the view of the AO [Refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment introduced limiting the time for carrying forward for a period of eight years has to be reckoned not from 1993-94 but from 1996-97 and the same was carried forward and by the year 2006-07 since again there is an amendment introduced during 2002 making this period of eight years as unlimited, from 2002 onwards even till 2006-07, it is permissible to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation in view of the change in position of law. This aspect has not been considered by the revisional authority as such, the impugned order passed at Annexure Q is without taking into consideration the provisions under s.32 (2) of the Act which came to be introduced limiting extending the period from eight years for an unlimited period. Further, carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue s appeals for the AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. II.ITA Nos.58 59/B/12 AYs 05-06 06-07 By the assessee: 8. The sum and substance of the assessee s submission was that the re-opening of the assessment was on change of opinion and that the AO by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act intended to set right an alleged error in interpretation of law while concluding the original assessment. It was argued that there was no fresh material to arrive at such a conclusion. It was, further, submitted that since the AO s action in invoking the provisions of section 147 was bad in law and, consequently, the reassessment doesn t survive. The assessee had quoted various case laws i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s juncture, we would like to point out that the re-opening of the assessments were objected to by the assessee and the AO rejected the assessee s contentions and went ahead with the re-opening and reframing of the assessment(s). However, the assessee had no occasion to rebut the AO s stand on the issue. Since the issues raised by the Revenue in its appeals (supra) with regard to the CIT (A) s direction to the AO to allow set off of carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation against the incomes of AYS 2005-06 and 2006-07 have been remitted back to the file of the AO for a fresh look (supra), we are of the considered view that the issues raised by the assessee in respect of re-opening of the assessment by the AO and also objecting to the invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
