2015 (1) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herein, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.11.1996, declaring total income at Rs. 'NIL'. It appears that on 02.05.1997, the assessee, revised the return filed by it due to change in depreciation, wherein, also the assessee declared income at Rs. 'NIL'. Then, on 20.11.1997, the assessee filed second return due to change in deferred revenue expenditure, declaring its total income at Rs. 'NIL'. The case of the assessee, then, came to be processed and at the end of assessment proceedings, the concerned AO, though, accepted the return of the assessee, declaring income at Rs.'NIL', he observed in the Assessment Order that same has no bearing on the block assessment and that the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmined in earlier years cannot be changed during A.Y. 1996-97. He, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Divatia, learned Advocate for the respondent-assessee, submitted that there being concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, present appeal be dismissed. 6. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material, including the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Before proceeding with the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 158B(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under;     "158B. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-     (a) "block period" means the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y or narrate as to what were those findings. From the record it also appears that the depreciation brought forward from the earlier years is quantified at Rs. 8,19,840/- and that the AO had substituted the amount of Rs. 5,64,030/- due to some disallowances made by the concerned A.O. for the A.Y. 1996-97. However, it appears that no such exercise was undertaken by the concerned AO for the subsequent years. We are, therefore, of the view that, since, AO had not undertaken any exercise, as stated above, for the year under consideration, the Tribunal was justified in observing that the AO ought not to have disturbed the figure of unabsorbed depreciation, without dealing with the earlier assessment orders. Since, unless the earlier orders of ass....