M/s Gaurish Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1080/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 108021514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Proportionate interest; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 69; 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1080/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/S GAURISH STEELS PVT. LTD., VS. THE A.C.I.T., G.T. ROAD, LUDHIANA. CIRCLE V, LUDHIANA. PAN: AADCG0068N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.09.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 25.9.2014 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL : 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN ADOPTING THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING SURVEY AS DE EMED INCOME AT RS.70 LACS AND MAKING ADDITION IN THE INC OME ASSESSED. 2 2.A). THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACT THAT THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 70 LACS HAD BEEN REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY EVEN, THERE WAS LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF TRADING ACCOUNT SUBMITTED AS ON THE DATE OF SURV EY AND, AS SUCH, THE SET OFF SURRENDERED INCOME AGAINST THE BUSINESS LOSS IS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE. B). THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE T O FIND ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF STEEL ITEMS AND ALSO, THERE HAD NOT B EEN ANY ADVERSE FINDINGS/NOTE GIVEN BY THE SURVEY TEAM. 3. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE, THE WORTHY CIT (A) HA S ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT AS PER SECTION 14 OF THE IN COME TAX, THE INCOME CAN BE TAXED ONLY UNDER 5 HEADS AS PROVID ED IN THAT SECTION AND INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER ANY O THER HEAD WHICH IS NOT GIVEN IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4 A). THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA LTD. VS ITO, AMBAL A CANTT, IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 4 B) NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL, THE L D. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT WHILE UPHO LDING AMOUNT OF RS.70 LACS SURRENDERED DURING COURSE OF TH E SURVEY AS DEEMED INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT REDUCING THE SAID SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 70 LACS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS BUSINESS IN COME, AS SUCH, SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 70 LACS HAS BEEN AS SESSED TWICE ONCE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND OTHER AS DEEMED I NCOME 5. THAT AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,80,880/- M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 36(1)(III), THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LIMIT TH E DISALLOWANCE TO THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST IN THE RA TIO OF DEBT FUNDS I.E. IN THE DEBT, EQUITY RATIO AS PER FIND INGS GIVEN BY HIM IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER. 3 6. THAT SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING PREFERRED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 4(B) AND GROUND NO.5. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, GROUND NOS.4(B) AND 5 ARE DISMISSED AS BEING NOT PRESSED. 4. ALL THE OTHER GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NOS.1,2,3 AND 4(A) RELATE TO COMMON ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS.70 LACS. THEREFORE, WE WILL ADJUDICATE THE SAME TOGETHER. 5. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF STEEL R OUND, FLAT, SCRAP AND TRADING OF IRON AND STEEL. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.23,04,500/- ON 23.9.2 011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER THE PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT, THE INCOME OF RS.70 LACS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED AT ITS PREMISES ON 6 .10.2010 WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCO ME SURRENDERED IS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, CASH, EXP ENSES, WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED OR WHICH WERE NOT REFL ECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFER RED TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA LTD . VS. ITO, AMBALA CANTT. IN ITA NO.189/CHD/2010, , WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS HELD THAT THE DEEMED INCOME COVERED UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) IS TO BE TREATED SEPARATELY AND NOT AS INCOME UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS OF 4 INCOME PROVIDED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE SURRENDERED INCOME SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS IN COME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE SURRENDERED INCOME AS DEEM ED INCOME AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE EFFECT OF THE SAID FINDING WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLO W THE BENEFIT OF THE SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.58,19,120/ - AGAINST THE INCOME SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 6. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF CA SH AND STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS FROM TH E REGULAR BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS FACT W AS DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCORDINGLY, ADDED THE SAID SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF R S.70 LACS IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO CONT ENDED THAT AS PER SECTION 14 OF THE ACT, THE INCOME CAN BE TAX ED ONLY UNDER FIVE HEADS PROVIDED IN THAT SECTION AND ANY I NCOME CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD WHICH IS NOT G IVEN IN THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D.P. SANDHU B ROTHERS CHEMBUR P. LTD., 273 ITR 1 (SC) AND THAT OF THE HON 'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KEVALCHAND NEEMCH AND MEHTA VS. CIT 67 ITR 804 (BOM). THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO A RECENT DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S SHILPA DYEING AND PRINTING MIL LS (P) LTD. 5 (2014) 381 DTR 381 (GUJ). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 25 8 CTR 454, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED UPON HA S BEEN DISTINGUISHED IN THIS JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COUR T. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) REJECTED THE SAI D CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE INCOM E HAS TO BE TAXED ONLY UNDER ANY ONE OF THE HEADS PROVIDED I N SECTION 14 OF THE ACT, IS NOT A LEGALLY TENABLE POSITION. FURTHER, HE RELIED AGAIN ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD.(SUPR A) WHICH HE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, CHANDIG ARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT.PROMILA JAIN VS. DCIT, AMBALA I N ITA NO.1449/CHD/2010. AS PER THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) , IN THIS DECISION, THE ITAT HAD HELD THAT THE SURRENDERED IN COME ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN CASH, STOCK AND INVESTM ENT WAS TAXABLE AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTIONS 69 AND 69A OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION, H E HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN TREATI NG THE INCOME SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AMOUNTING T O RS.70 LACS AS DEEMED INCOME AND WAS RIGHT IN NOT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES FROM THIS INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) . 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT DURING T HE COURSE 6 OF SURVEY SURRENDER OF RS.70 LACS WAS MADE UNDER TH E FOLLOWING HEADS : I) DISCREPANCY ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND RS.9 LACS II) DISCREPANCY ON COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING RS.21 LACS III) DISCREPANCY IN STOCK RS.10 LACS IV) DISCREPANCY IN ADVANCES AND RECEIVABLE RS.30 L ACS 8. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE REASONS FOR T HE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS LOSS SUFFERED DURING THE YEAR WERE DULY EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALL THE PURC HASES AND SALES WERE FULLY VOUCHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT DOUBTED THIS ASPECT, NOR THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRECISELY IS THA T RS.70 LACS SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IS NOT BUSINESS I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE INCOME WAS OUTSIDE THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SURRENDER SO MADE HAS BEEN MADE IN SOME DIFFERENT HEAD NOT RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO INVITED O UR ATTENTION TO SECTION 71 OF THE ACT, WHEREBY BUSINES S LOSS OF CURRENT YEAR CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME UNDE R ANY OF THE OTHER HEADS. AS PER HIM, EVEN IF THE SURRENDER ED INCOME IS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES , THE BUSINESS LOSSES SUFFERED DURING THE YEAR ARE ALLOWA BLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE SAME. AS REGARDS THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE I TAT AND THE 7 HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF FAKIR MOHAMED HAJI HASAN VS. CIT, AS REPORTED IN 247 ITR 290, WHICH HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY THE HON'BLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S SHILPA DYEING AND PR INTING MILLS (SUPRA). FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF M/S SHILPA DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT HAS RELIED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHENSING VENTURES (2 007) 291 ITR 258 (MAD) OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF M/S KIM PHAR MA PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) STANDS DISTINGUISHED BY THE LATEST JUDG MENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT, MADRAS AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF M /S KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD.(SUPRA), THE ISSUE WAS OF THE SURRE NDER OF CASH ONLY, AS SURRENDER ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDIT S, REPAIRS TO BUILDING AND ADVANCES TO STAFF WERE ALREADY HELD TO BE RELATABLE TO BUSINESS INCOME. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS STATED THAT ALL THE COMPONENTS OF SURRENDERED INCOME EXCEPT THE CASH SO SURRENDERED MAY PLEASE BE TREATED AS PART OF BUSINE SS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS PRAYED THAT TH E BUSINESS LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE SURRENDERED INCOM E. 9. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS IS A FACT ON R ECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.70 LACS AS 8 ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDU CTED AT ITS PREMISES ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING HEADS : I) DISCREPANCY ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND RS.9 LACS II) DISCREPANCY ON COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING RS.21 LACS III) DISCREPANCY IN STOCK RS.10 LACS IV) DISCREPANCY IN ADVANCES AND RECEIVABLE RS.30 L ACS 11. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY ANY ONE AT ANY STAGE. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED BY US I S WHETHER THE INCOME OF RS.70 LACS SURRENDERED IS TO BE TAXAB LE AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTIONS 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT A S HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENTS HAVE BEEN CITED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, HOWEV ER, WE HAVE TO BOW DOWN TO THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY TH E JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF M/S KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) SINCE THIS IS THE O NLY JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH WER E BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. 12. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, WE FIND OURSE LVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THAT CASE WAS THE TAXABILITY OF CASH SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS.10 L ACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDIT S, REPAIRS TO BUILDING AND ADVANCES TO STAFF, WHICH BE ING 9 RELATABLE TO BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WA S ALREADY INCLUDED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE SEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE DISPUTED THE BUSINESS LOSSES IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. IT WAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT EVEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED BY THE SURVEY TEAM, THERE WERE LOSSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, T HE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CA SH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, DISCREPANCY IN THE COS T OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, DISCREPANCY IN STOCK AND DISCREPANCY IN ADVANCES AND RECEIVABLES. BY NO ST RETCH OF IMAGINATION, ANY OF THESE INCOMES APART FROM CASH C AN BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD OTHER THAT THE BUSINESS INCOME. 14. NOWHERE IN HIS ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD THE FACT THAT THE INCOME SU RRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS NOT OUT OF THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALSO NOWHERE HE HAS OBJECTED TO THE HEAD S UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THESE AMOUNTS, I .E. CASH, CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, DISCREPANCY IN STOCK AND DISCREPANCY IN ADVANCES AND RECEIVABLE. FURTHER, E VEN THE SURVEY TEAM HAS NOT FOUND ANY SOURCE OF INCOME EXCE PT THE BUSINESS INCOME. NOW, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE CAN SAFELY INFER THAT APART FR OM CASH 10 ALL OTHER INCOME SURRENDERED MAY BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME WHILE THE CASH HAS TO BE TAX ED UNDER THE HEAD DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT . 15. NOW, AS REGARDS THE BUSINESS LOSSES INCURRED B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR, THESE CAN BE SET OFF AGAI NST THE INCOME SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY EXCE PT FOR THE AMOUNT OF CASH SURRENDERED, AS PER THE MANDATE OF S ECTION 71 OF THE ACT. NO LOSS CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE CAS H SURRENDERED AS THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD TO BE TAXED UNDER A DIFFERENT HEAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS H EREBY DIRECTED TO SET OFF BUSINESS LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SURRENDERED INCOME EXCEPT THE ELEMENT OF CASH SURRENDERED. 16. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 'NOTWITHSTANDING THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS ALREADY TAKEN IN ITA NO. 1080/CHD/2014 FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEEMED INCOME AS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154, DATED 18.02.2015.' 17. SINCE, THIS IS A PURELY LEGAL GROUND AND ALL T HE FACTS ARE BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD, WE HEREBY ADMIT THE SAME. 11 18. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE R ELATES TO THE SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. AS WE H AVE ALREADY HELD THE SURRENDERED INCOME APART FROM CASH TO BE T AXED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DIRECTED TO SET OFF THE AMOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPREC IATION OUT OF THESE INCOME. SINCE BOTH UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N AS WELL AS BUSINESS LOSSES WILL BE SET OFF OUT OF THESE INC OMES, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE SAME CAN BE ADJUSTED OUT OF CASH SURRENDERED TAXED AS DEEMED IN COME OR NOT. THIS ISSUE HAVING BECOME ACADEMIC, WE DO NOT FIND ANY NECESSITY TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 12