TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de his order dated 13.03.2013 for assessment year 2010-11. Assessee raised following grounds:- "1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT is wholly wrong and unjustified in initiating proceeding u/s. 263 and passing an arbitrary order u/s. 263 of the Act directing revision of original assessment ordered u/s. 143(3) without application of mind and without considering the facts and the law explained. 2. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the order u/s 263 is wholly bad, illegal and void ab-initio and such order u/s/ 263 has been made by the Ld. CIT without properly taking into consideration the submission made by your petitioner by letter dt. 17.09.2014 and in view of the facts and in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d / cancelled. 6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the AO having taken a possible view in the matter, provisions of sec. 263 even otherwise also did not lie in the case. 7. For that in view of the facts and n the circumstances, the Ld. CIT having nowhere concluded that the order of the AO was erroneous inasmuch as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, order of the Ld. CIT(A) is even otherwise also wholly bad, illegal, unjustified and uncalled for and it may kindly be quashed / cancelled." 2. The common issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT erred in treating the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on account of allowing the unabsorbed depreciation for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sorbed depreciation of earlier years would be governed by post 1997 and pre 2002 provisions. As the present provisions for setting off the unabsorbed depreciation specifies that if full effect cannot be given to any allowance of depreciation in any previous year, the same would be considered to be the depreciation of the subsequent year or years. It was also contended that as the words used "any previous year" would cover even previous years prior to A.Y. 2002-03. However the ld. CIT has disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing as under : "The contention of the assessee cannot be accepted simply because a plain reading of the Act, as it stood prior to introduction of Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f. 01.04.2002 states that if the u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20,11,633/- which was allowed to be carried forward by AO in his order for the relevant AY i.e. 2010-11 but Ld. CIT found that unabsorbed depreciation was not allowable to be carried forward for a period more than 8 years. Therefore, Ld. CIT opined that matter to be restored to file of AO for fresh adjudication. We further find that same issue has been decided by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) and head-note of extract portion is reproduced below:- "Any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April, 2002 (A.Y 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng year the unabsorbed depreciation is added to the current depreciation for such succeeding year and is deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. Thus any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April 2002 (A.Y 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. And once the Circular No. 14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y 1997-98 upto the A.Y 2001-002 got carried forward to the asses....