9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered firm, constituted of two partners, namely, Shri Sardari Lal and Smt. Saroj Rani, purchased truck No. JKP-9971 for Rs. 1,89,288 as shown in the balance-sheet ending 31-3-1980. Apparently, the assessee did not claim depreciation on it and the relevant part pertaining to the details to be given under section 32 of the Act in the return was left unfilled. 3. The ITO, however, computed depreciation on the said truck at the prescribed, rate and allowed the same to the extent of Rs. 56,990 and after setting off the net profit as per profit and loss account to the extent of Rs. 3,480 allocated the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 53,508 amongst two partners. 4. For the assessment year under appeal, the vehicle having had been sold for Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that previous year, be deemed to be the allowance for that previous year, and so on for the succeeding previous years." 6. The AAC in the first appeal accepted the assessee's contention that the ITO was statutorily bound to take notice of and give necessary relief and allow unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of the partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue's appeal is treated as partly allowed. This course I am adopting because for the Revenue the learned D.Rs. very effectively pointed out that the cause of action for the Revenue's appeal emanated from the dispute for the assessment year 1980-81 and if necessary directions are not issued the assessee may get double benefits, of adjustment of depreciation twice over. One for the assessment year 1980-81 if it is to succeed in its Reference and again for the assessment year under appeal. 9. The appeal has been decided exercising my discretion under Rule 25 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 because in spite of there being evidence of service of hearing notice on Shri Sardari Lal, partner, on the appeal being called on for he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
