Court rules unabsorbed depreciation must offset partners' income first before firm's profits.

The High Court held that unabsorbed depreciation should first be adjusted against the income of partners before being carried forward by the firm for adjustment against its profits in subsequent years. The Court referred to legal principles established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that a firm and its partners are distinct assessees for income tax purposes. The Court's decision aligned with Section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which outlines the process for adjusting unabsorbed depreciation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward in the hands of a firm for adjustment and set off against profits in subsequent yearsRs.

Analysis:
The case involved a question of law referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the allowance of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of a firm for adjustment and set off against profits in subsequent years. The firm in question had unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,70,631 for the assessment year 1980-81. The Income-tax Officer had set off a portion of the depreciation against the firm's income, but the balance could not be absorbed due to lack of profits. The firm claimed that the unabsorbed depreciation should not have been apportioned among the partners but carried forward in the hands of the firm for future adjustment against the firm's profits in subsequent years.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the firm's claim, holding that the Income-tax Officer erred in apportioning the unabsorbed depreciation among the partners and refusing to carry it forward in the hands of the firm. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal, considering the conflicting views of various High Courts, decided in favor of the assessee.

The High Court, in its judgment, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 512, which clarified that a firm and its partners are distinct assessees for income tax purposes, but the Act recognizes that the business conducted by a firm is also conducted by each partner individually. Section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifies that unabsorbed depreciation should first be adjusted against the firm's other business income and the partners' incomes. If any depreciation remains unadjusted, it should be apportioned to the partners and adjusted against their incomes. Only if some depreciation still remains unadjusted after this process can the firm carry it forward to subsequent years for adjustment against its profits.

Therefore, based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, the High Court answered the question in favor of the Revenue, holding that the unabsorbed depreciation should have been adjusted against the income of the partners before being carried forward by the firm for adjustment against its profits in subsequent years.

---