TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two plausible opinion. In the instant case, the Tribunal has dealt with the contention of the revenue in paragraph 6 and has held that for the reasons assigned therein, in the case of 'PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Vs. CIT' [ 2016 (5) TMI 109 - SC ORDER] does not apply to the case of the assessee and has recorded a finding that the miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed as the revenue has failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal. The order dated 06.07.2017 is based on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in M/s. GENERAL MOTORS INDIA [ 2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . The aforesaid order does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absorbed depreciation in relation to Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 in the return of income. The aforesaid claim was accepted in the regular assessment under Section 143(3) for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. The assessee was directed to carry forward the depreciation in the proceeding under Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11 also. 3. Thereafter, a notice under Section 154 of the Act was served on the assessee by which it was proposed to disallow the unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee submitted its response to the aforesaid notices and the Assessing Officer, by an order dated 25.02.2014 passed under Section 154 of the Act, rectified the assessment and disallowed the unabsorbed assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsorbed depreciation, is prospective in nature and applies w.e.f. 01.04.2002 only. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the amendment made to Section 32(2) of the Act is prospective in nature. In this connection, our attention has been invited to memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2001. Learned counsel for the revenue, while inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) MUMBAI Vs. M/s. DILIP KUMAR AND CO. ORS.' (2018) 68 GST 239, has submitted that the provisions pertaining to deduction / exemption has to be strictly considered and in case there is any ambiguity in the provision, the benefit of the same has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. It is settled in law that the detection of such a mistake does not require a search or thorough application of mind and there cannot be a mistake in respect of an issue which admits of two plausible opinion. In the instant case, the Tribunal has dealt with the contention of the revenue in paragraph 6 and has held that for the reasons assigned therein, in the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of 'PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Vs. CIT' 380 ITR 165 does not apply to the case of the assessee and has recorded a finding that the miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed as the revenue has failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
