TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-V, Pune dated 18.02.2014 relating to assessment year 2007-08 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that limitation of 8 years for carry fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,81,931/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and order under section 143(3) was passed on 23.12.2009 on a total loss of Rs. 86,61,76,064/-. Subsequently, it was noticed that unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 1997-98 to 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 87,08,64,394/- was wrongly allowed. Accordingly, the order passed under section 143(3) was set-aside under section 263 of the Act. Thereafter, order under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../PN/2012 relating to assessment year 2007-08, order dated 29.01.2015. Accordingly, the assessment order of the Assessing Officer and the appellate 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 CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We find the order u/s.143(3) has been passed for A.Y. 2006-07 determining the unabsorbed depreciation and business loss that has to be carried forward the details of which are already given at para 4 of the impugned order. Therefore, the mistake, if any, has crept in the order for A.Y. 2006-07 and certainly not in the order for A.Y. 2007- 08. The AO has simply followed the order of his predecessor....