2016 (3) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that limitation of 8 years for carry forward and set off would no longer apply to the unabsorbed depreciation that arose during A.Y. 1997-98 to 2001-02, when Section 32(2) of the Act as applicable during the period 1997 to 2002 does not provide for a mechanism to add the unabsorbed depreciation to the allowance u/s 32(1) of the following previous year and there is no express provision in the law to add it to the following year's allowance u/s 32(1) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal." 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts concerning the issues involved are that the assessee company is a public sector enterprise en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate order of the CIT(A) against which the Revenue is in appeal before us does not survive and is rendered nonest. 7. We notice that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA No.1044/PN/2012 (supra) has cancelled the action of the CIT(A) under section 263 of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case (supra) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :- "6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions relied on by both the sides. We find the Ld.CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 on the ground that the AO in the....