Court invalidates reassessment notice, allows depreciation carry forward beyond 8 years under Income-tax Act.

The court quashed the reassessment notice and related proceedings, ruling in favor of the petitioner. It held that the reassessment was invalid as the carry forward of depreciation was not restricted by the pre-amendment Section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act, which was no longer in force post-April 1, 2002. The court found that the Revenue lacked sufficient grounds for reopening the assessment, citing that the previous limitation on carrying forward depreciation beyond eight years was removed by the amendment.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to reassessment notice under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening completed assessment for AY 2010-11 based on unabsorbed depreciation set off from AY 2001-02.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the reassessment notice, arguing that the "reasons to believe" did not meet the standards set by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. The petitioner contended that the reassessment notice was unsustainable as it implied that set off of unabsorbed depreciation from past assessments was not permissible under the pre-amendment Section 32(2) of the Act. Citing the Gujarat High Court ruling in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, the petitioner claimed the notice was invalid.

The Revenue defended the reassessment, stating it was prompted by an audit objection. It argued that as per the law applicable at the time, depreciation could only be carried forward for eight years, which had expired before AY 2010-11. Hence, the Revenue asserted that the reassessment notice was valid and should not be challenged.

The court analyzed the situation, noting that the assessee had indeed claimed a set off under the pre-amendment Section 32(2) of the Act for AY 2010-11. The court agreed with the Assessing Officer's interpretation, supported by subsequent judgments, that the carry forward of depreciation was not restricted by the pre-amendment Section 32(2) which was no longer in force post-April 1, 2002.

Consequently, the court found that the Revenue lacked tangible material to support the reopening of the assessment. The court upheld the view from General Motors India Private Limited's case that the amendment removed the previous limitation on carrying forward depreciation beyond eight years. Therefore, the court quashed the reassessment notice and all related proceedings, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.

---