2025 (9) TMI 583 - AT - Income Tax

Finding upheld: Rs.2.38 crore is unabsorbed depreciation, not business loss, carriable under s.32(2) r.w.s.80 though not claimed in return u/s.139(1)

ACIT Anand Circle Versus Elecon Engineering Company Ltd., Anand

ITAT affirmed the appellate authority's finding that the impugned Rs. 2.38 crore loss was unabsorbed depreciation, not business loss, and therefore could ... Treating the current year loss as unabsorbed depreciation - contention made by the assessee before him that the loss for the impugned year was depreciation loss and not business loss and noting the provisions of Section 32(2) which allowed carry forward of depreciation loss without requirement of claiming the same in a return filed u/s. 139(1) HELD THAT:- Assessee had losses on account of unabsorbed depreciation which after setting off income from house property, capital gain and other sources, remained to be carried forward. CIT(A) categorically noted the facts to reveal the loses as pertaining to unabsorbed depreciation. During the course of hearing before us assessee demonstrated from the return of income filed from the impugned year at Schedule UD of unabsorbed depreciation and allowance u/s. 35(4) of the Act that the amount was reflected therein. Our attention was also drawn to Schedule CFL being details of losses to be carried forward to the future years where it was demonstrated that no such amount of Rs. 2.38 Crs was reflected. Decided against regenue. DR also fairly conceded before us that the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding of fact that the impugned loss carried forward by the assessee pertained to unabsorbed depreciation was correct. No merit in the ground raised by the Revenue agitating the finding of fact of the CIT(A) that the current year’s loss of Rs. 2.38 Crores carried forward by the assessee related to unabsorbed depreciation. Revenue has not raised any ground challenging the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that in terms of Section 32(2) r.w.s. 80 of the Act, the assessee is not required to claim unabsorbed depreciation in a return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act for being eligible to carry forward the same for set off in the succeeding years. Be that so, even the Ld. DR was unable to point out any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as aforesaid, nor was she able to controvert the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in support of its findings. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the loss of Rs. 2,38,86,742 claimed by the assessee for the year is unabsorbed depreciation within the meaning of section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act and not a business loss. 2. Whether carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) is conditional on filing the return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) (i.e., whether a belated return prevents carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Characterisation of the loss as unabsorbed depreciation versus business loss Legal framework: Section 32(1) grants depreciation allowance; section 32(2) provides that where full effect cannot be given to depreciation in a year owing to insufficiency of profits, the unabsorbed part shall be added to depreciation of subsequent years and treated as depreciation for those years. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal and High Court decisions relied upon by the appellate authority treat unabsorbed depreciation as becoming part of subsequent year's depreciation by legal fiction and therefore identifiable separately from ordinary business losses. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate authority examined the return particulars showing (a) depreciation claim of Rs. 28.88 crore, (b) profit from business before depreciation of Rs. 24.59 crore, yielding an unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4.29 crore, and (c) after inter-source set-offs, a carry forward unabsorbed depreciation balance of Rs. 2.38 crore. On that factual matrix the authority held the impugned amount to be unabsorbed depreciation rather than a trade/business loss. The Tribunal accepted the appellate authority's factual finding and noted that the assessee's schedules (Schedule UD and Schedule CFL) corroborated the classification (amount shown in Schedule UD; not shown as CFL business loss). Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that the impugned sum is unabsorbed depreciation is a primary factual and legal ratio of the decision - the Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's factual finding and treated it as determinative for the legal consequence of carry forward under section 32(2). Conclusion: The loss of Rs. 2,38,86,742 is properly characterised as unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2), not as a business loss. Issue 2: Effect of belated filing of return on entitlement to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation Legal framework: Section 32(2) governs carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. Section 80 and certain other provisions create express linkages between timely filing and carry forward of specified losses; section 139 prescribes return filing timelines (section 139(1) timely filing; section 139(4) belated return). Precedent treatment: Authorities relied upon (including Tribunal and High Court decisions) distinguish section 32(2) from provisions like section 80 which impose a timely-filing precondition; these precedents hold that unabsorbed depreciation, by virtue of the legal fiction in section 32(2), can be carried forward even if the return for the earlier year was filed belatedly. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate authority construed section 32(2) as self-contained: where depreciation could not be fully allowed because of insufficient profits, the unabsorbed allowance is carried forward as depreciation in subsequent years irrespective of the timeliness of the return. The authority found no requirement in section 32(2) or section 139 that the earlier year's return must have been filed within the due date to claim carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's view treating the amount as a business loss and denying carry forward because the return was late was legally incorrect. Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that timely filing is not a precondition for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) is treated as a binding ratio by the Tribunal for the facts of the case and was determinative of the outcome; reliance on prior decisions following the same principle forms part of the operative reasoning. Conclusion: Carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) is not conditional on filing the return within the time prescribed under section 139(1); a belated return does not preclude entitlement to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation. Cross-references and interaction of issues The factual determination (Issue 1) that the amount is unabsorbed depreciation is the predicate for applying the legal principle (Issue 2) that section 32(2) entitles carry forward irrespective of belated filing. The Tribunal's acceptance of the appellate authority's factual finding meant the legal consequence under section 32(2) followed and the rectification order under section 154 disallowing the carry forward was quashed. Outcome and operative conclusion Given the factual finding that the impugned loss is unabsorbed depreciation and the legal position that section 32(2) permits carry forward without a timely-filing precondition, the Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's order allowing carry forward and dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the rectification under section 154.