Court rules unabsorbed depreciation not adjustable in subsequent year, partners must set off.

The court held that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 39,543 for the assessment year 1972-73 could not be adjusted while computing the income of the assessee-firm for the year 1973-74. The court found that the legislative intent was for the partners to set off the unabsorbed depreciation allowance and not for it to be recycled back to the firm. The decision was in line with the views of the Gujarat, Allahabad, and Delhi High Courts, and the court ruled against the assessee, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 39,543 for the assessment year 1973-74 can be adjusted while computing the income of the assessee-firm in the assessment year 1973-74.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Unabsorbed Depreciation Allowance Adjustment:
The central issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation allowance. The specific question referred to the court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 39,543 for the assessment year 1973-74 cannot be allowed to be adjusted while computing the income of the assessee-firm in the assessment year 1973-74.

Facts and Background:
The assessee, a registered firm, had an unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,14,779 for the assessment year 1972-73. After setting off this amount against the individual income of the partners, Rs. 39,543 remained unabsorbed. The firm claimed this balance should be set off against its income for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim, a decision upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Gujarat, Allahabad, and Delhi High Courts, which supported the view that the unabsorbed depreciation could not be carried forward by the firm but only by the partners.

Legal Provisions and Judicial Opinions:
Section 32(2) of the Act was the focal point of interpretation. This section allows for the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to be added to the depreciation allowance for the following year. The section's language indicates that if the assessee is a registered firm, the unabsorbed depreciation is allocated to the partners, who then can set it off against their other incomes.

The court examined various judicial opinions:
- Bombay High Court's View: In Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. CIT, the court held that unabsorbed depreciation should be carried forward by the firm and not the partners.
- Madras High Court's View: In CIT v. Nagapatinam Import and Export Corporation, the court opined that unabsorbed depreciation should be added to the firm's depreciation for the following year.
- Gauhati High Court's View: In CIT v. Singh Transport Co., the court viewed Section 32(2) as an independent provision for the set-off and carry forward of depreciation allowance.

Conversely, the Gujarat, Allahabad, and Delhi High Courts supported the view that the unabsorbed depreciation should be carried forward by the partners.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
The court found the views of the Gujarat, Allahabad, and Delhi High Courts more persuasive. It emphasized that Section 32(2) specifically provides for the assessment of partners regarding unabsorbed depreciation allowance. The court noted that the legislative intent was clear that the unabsorbed depreciation should be set off in the hands of the partners and not recycled back to the firm. The court also highlighted that the partners are entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation allowance if it cannot be set off in the previous year.

The court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 39,543 for the assessment year 1972-73 could not be adjusted while computing the income of the assessee-firm for the year 1973-74.

Judgment:
The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, against the assessee, and held that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be adjusted while computing the firm's income for the assessment year 1973-74. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

---