TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs.68,36,912/- on account of unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 1997-98 which was set off during the year under consideration. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the amendment made by finance act 2001 w.e.f. A.Y. 2002-03 was applicable to the facts of the case and therefore the unabsorbed depreciation was correctly carried forward. 2. Apropos to Ground Nos.1 & 2, ld.AR Mr.Gaurav Nahta has pleaded that originally an assessment was made u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act vide an order dated 22.8.2008 and the computation of the finally assessed income was made by the Assessing Officer as under:- "Total income as per computation of total income Rs. Nil/- Book-profit u/s.115JB of the I.T. Act Rs.74,75,975/- (Unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.76,912/- for AY 1998-99 and of For AY 2000-01 is allowed to be carried forward) Rs.3,85,0678/- 2.1. He has also drawn our attention that as per the statement of income, the assessee has claimed the set off of brought forward losses/depreciation in the following manner: "STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME Net Profit as per Profit & Loss A/c Before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to which it was observed that as per section 32(2)(iii)(b) as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1st day of April, 1997 if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be wholly set off, then the remaining unabsorbed depreciation allowance shall be carried forward to the following assessment years not being more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the said allowance was first computed. As per the impugned reasons recorded, it was held that the assessee could be eligible for set off uptil A.Y. 2005-06 (97-98 + eight years). However, the assessee has made the claim in A.Y. 2006-07 resulted into an under assessment to the extent of Rs.68,36,912/-, as alleged by the Revenue Department. But the fact remained uncontroverted that while framing the assessment originally u/s.143(3) vide order dated 22.8.2008 the Assessing Officer has examined the claim as made by the assessee in the "statement of total income", already reproduced (supra). Due to this reason, it is difficult to hold that passing of such an order u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act by the Assessing Officer was without due diligence or without proper application of mind. In the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mind, would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceedings so as to correct its own wrong. When there is no fresh fact came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer between the date of the order of the original assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of the opinion by the Assessing Officer, nothing new, as stated, has happened, then in the opinion of the Respected Coordinate Bench the reopening of such an assessment tantamount to change of opinion. Case laws cited were Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. vs. ACIT 220 ITR 194 (Guj.) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. 234 ITR 170 (Delhi). Following these decisions, we are also of the opinion that although the reopening was made within four years from the end of the assessment year, but still that was nothing but simplistic change of opinion because in the first round the original assessment was made u/s.143(3) that too after duly considering the claim of depreciation as per the statement of income furnished by the assessee, hence on those very facts there did not exist any reason to believe for escapement of assessment. On those very facts which were found t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sorbed depreciation to 8 years will adversely affect the growth of industry. Similar apprehensions have been raised in a large number of post-budget memoranda. I would like to allay these fears. The proposed amendment is only prospective inasmuch as accumulative unabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1st April, 1997, can still be set off against taxable business profits or income under any other head for the assessment year 197-98 and seven subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the proposed change will have effect only after 8 years and there is no cause for immediate concern about its likely impact on industry. Eight years is a period long enough for industry to adjust itself to the new dispensation and provide for depreciation accordingly. A number of Hon'ble members have brought to my notice that the proposed amendment may adversely affect sick companies. I accept the suggestions made by them. I, therefore, propose to provide that the time limit of 8 years shall not apply to sick companies, during the period the company is treated as a :sick company" under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985." 5. 1. Thereafter, an another amendment took pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 onwards even till 2006-07, it is permissible to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation in view of the change in position of law. This aspect has not been considered by the revisional authority as such, the impugned order passed at Annex. Q is without taking into consideration the provisions under s. 32(2) of the Act which came to be introduced limiting/extending the period from eight years for an unlimited period. Further, carrying forward of unabsorbed depreciation for every year has to be calculated individually based on the audit report and to arrive at the exact amount to be carried forward." 7. In the light of the above discussion, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible for the claim of depreciation as per law for the year under consideration. Ground Nos.3 & 4 are allowed. In the result, Assessee's appeal, i.e. ITA No.1125/Ahd/2012 is allowed. [B] ITA No.1077/Ahd/2012 (Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09) 8. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-6 Ahmedabad dated 13/03/2012 and the solitary ground is reproduced below:- 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.21,71,149/- made u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was stated to be the reimbursement of expenses, i.e. 2,18,35,802/- no TDS was deducted. A point was stressed upon that the payment to Aashita international was towards export and import of goods because the said party happened to be a Clearing & Forwarding Agent and the payment was in the nature of reimbursement of Shipping Freight, Ocean Freight, Bill of entry, Labour charges, re-packing charges, Fumigation charges, Documentation Charges and amount paid to CONCOR. The substantial amount was in relation to "Shipping Freight" paid to Aashita International. The assessee has also placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.723 dated 19.9.1995 which prescribes that no TDS was required to be deducted in respect of payment made to foreign shipping companies or their agents. The Assessing Officer was not convinced and he has noted that payment made to Clearing & Forwarding Agent (in short "CFA") was on account of freight, other than ocean freight and there were charges amounting to Rs.21,71,149/-. The assessee has contended that the said amount was petty reimbursements to CFA. As per Assessing Officer, the payments were not below the prescribed limit for TDS deduction as prescribed u/s.194C o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.9,07,020/- which was made on account of exclusion of excise duty in closing stock valuation. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.17,04,828/- which was made u/s.40(a)(ia) despite the fact that no payment is excluded from TDS u/s.194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10.1 Apropos to ground No.1, facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 18/11/2011 for A.Y. 2009-10 were that it was noted by the Assessing Officer that in the value of the closing stock of Rs.1,11,15,450/-, the assessee had not included the excise duty in the closing stock. As per Assessing Officer, the excise duty was @ 8.16% amounting to Rs.9,07,020/- which should have been added to the closing stock. In compliance, the assessee has submitted that the purchases were shown net of excise duty, therefore, valuation of raw-material was net of the duty. The duty which was remained to be utilized was shown as an asset in the balance-sheet. The CENVAT was receivable was shown as a closing balance of Rs.22,37,724/-. However, the Assessing Officer has opined that s....