Appeal dismissed due to unabsorbed depreciation discrepancies. Justice and equity considered for late filing.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal despite a 170-day delay in filing, citing reasons of justice and equity. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed due to discrepancies in the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation over multiple years, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's claim lacked merit. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision and pronounced the order in Chennai on June 25, 2013.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, MAT provisions, Unabsorbed depreciation, Book profits under Section 115JB, Assessment order, Appeal before CIT(A), Second appeal before Tribunal, Principle of reducing brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation, Dismissal of appeal.

Delay in filing appeal & Condonation of delay:
The appellant filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order with a delay of 170 days, citing reasons related to the voluntary retirement of an employee and turbulent economic conditions in the aluminium industry. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions, condoned the delay, deeming it unintentional and in the interest of justice and equity. The appeal was admitted for further proceedings.

MAT provisions & Unabsorbed depreciation:
The appellant, a manufacturer of aluminium products, filed its return for AY 2005-06 declaring income as 'NIL' under regular computation. The Assessing Officer added back unabsorbed depreciation while computing book profits under Section 115JB, stating that the appellant had already claimed it in AY 2001-02. The appellant contended that as per Clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2), unabsorbed depreciation should be deducted while computing book profits. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had been carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation from previous years without justification, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Assessment order & Appeal before CIT(A):
The Assessing Officer's final assessment order included additions/disallowances, particularly on unabsorbed depreciation, leading the appellant to appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), based on earlier Tribunal orders, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Dissatisfied with the CIT(A)'s decision, the appellant approached the Tribunal for a second appeal.

Principle of reducing brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation:
The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's history of carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation, noting discrepancies in the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation in successive years. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2005-06, as it had already been claimed in prior years. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit based on this analysis.

Dismissal of appeal:
After reviewing submissions and orders, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal lacked merit due to the improper treatment of unabsorbed depreciation in previous years. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision and dismissed the appeal, pronouncing the order on June 25, 2013, at Chennai.

---

---