AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48,39,921/- by making additions. The case was re-opened by issuing notice under Section 148 on 08.03.2013 for the reason that the unabsorbed depreciation pertains to Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, was allowed in the assessment order though not allowable beyond 8 years and also can be set off only against income under the head 'business income'. As per Section 32(2) prior to amendment dated 01.04.2002, the unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward only for 8 subsequent year and set off only against the business income and hence, not an allowable claim. The re-opened assessment order was completed on 05.03.2014. Aggrieved over the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. Aggrieved over the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 3.The above Tax Case Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court was dismissed in the decision in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 258/242 Taxman 173/380 ITR 165 (SC). 6.After elaborately hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), would, in no manner, assist the case of the Revenue. We say so after referring to Circular No. 14/2001 dated 22-11-2002 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which are Explanatory Notes on Provisions relating to Direct Taxes. Paragraph 30 of the said circular deals with modification of provisions relating to depreciation. 7.For better appreciation, we quote paragraphs 30.1 to 30.5 of the said circular as hereunder : "30.1 Under the existing provisions of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation is allowed for 8 assessment years. 30.2 With a view to enable the industry to conserve sufficient funds to replace plant and machinery, specially in an era where obsolescence takes place so often, the Act has dispensed with the restric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 provisions of section 32(2) as it stood before the said amendment. Had the intention of the Legislature been to allow the unabsorbed depreciation allowance worked out in A.Y. 1997-98 only for eight subsequent assessment years even after the amendment of section 32(2) by Finance Act, 2001 it would have incorporated a provision to that effect. However, it does not contain any such provision. Hence keeping in view the purpose of amendment of section 32(2) of the Act, a purposive and harmonious interpretation has to be taken. While construing taxing statutes, rule of strict interpretation has to be applied, giving fair and reasonable construction to the language of the section without leaning to the side of assessee or the revenue. But if the legislature fails to express clearly and the assessee becomes entitled for a benefit within the ambit of the section by the clear words used in the section, the benefit accruing to the assessee cannot be denied. However, Circular No. 14 of 2001 had cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r issue was considered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 134 to 136 and 140, 141 and 148 of 2018, dated 13-6- 2018] following the decision in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 325/[2017] 394 ITR 73 (Bom.). The special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the above decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Pr. CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [SLP (C) Diary No. 48020 of 2018, dated 25-1-2019]. 12. In the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. G.T.M. Synthetics Ltd. [2013] 30 taxmann.com 83/[2012] 347 ITR 458], an identical issue was considered in the following terms : '8. The effect of omission of the aforesaid proviso was enumerated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide Circular No. 794 dated 9-8-2000 [(2000) 245 ITR (Statute)] 21 that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could be set-off against the income under any other head even where the business was not carried on. Clause 22 of the said circular which is relevant is as under: "22. Requirement of continuance of same business for set-off of unabsorbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year along with the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years becomes the total current year's depreciation which is allowed to be set off against income under any head of income including long term capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits and gains from business carried on by the assessee of the current year and so on. We order accordingly. However, our above decision with respect to ground nos. (i) and (ii) raised in memo of appeal filed by Revenue should be read in conjunction with and subject to our findings with respect to ground nos. (iii) and (iv) which are decided by us in the preceding para's of this order and the computation shall be made accordingly." 4. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not find any error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd. (supra) h....