TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's claim for adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years against the income of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?" The assessment years involved are 1969-70 and 1970-71, for which the relevant previous years ended on 31st Decemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the ITO should have set off the aforesaid unabsorbed depreciation against the profits for the years under reference. The AAC found that in the earlier assessment orders unabsorbed depreciation was not carried forward from year to year. The assessee admitted before the AAC that no business was done by the for the last several years. In those circumstances, the AAC rejected the claim of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n those assessment years. The assessee, however, stopped that business with effect from the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56. There was some unabsorbed depreciation and the income from house property was assessed to tax. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee received certain sums from the electricity department out of electricity charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off against the income from other sources in the earlier years. The finding of the Tribunal is that the unabsorbed depreciation was not adjusted in any of the earlier years and this fact has not been challenged by the assessee. It is also unnecessary for us to go into the question as to whether the unabsorbed depreciation call be adjusted in the absence of any business being carried oil by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t later on for the purpose of computation of the total income of the assessee in any subsequent year. Therefore, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Bhattacharjee and we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.--I agree. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
