The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Parry Engineering & Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1140/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4396 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV
• Assessee Lawyers: G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80G; 80IA; 32

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-14 ITO, WARD - 3(1)(2) AHMEDABAD. VS. M/S.PARRY ENGINEERING & ELECTRONICS B-608, NIRMAN COMPLEX OPP: HAVMOR RESTAURANT NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD 380 009. PAN AAACP 6747 J ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. DEV, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/05/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/05/2019 +,/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST OR DER OF LD.CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABAD DATED 2.3.2017 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.66,79,702/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF STEEL WINDOWS, CHANNELS, TEES ETC. AND TRADING IN IRON AND STEEL MATERIAL. IT IS ALSO OPERATING WIND-MILL FOR POWER GENERATION. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2013 DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME OF RS.4,68,723/- AFTER ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 2 CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.66,79,702/- UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT. AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HEAVY DEPREICATION ON THE WIND MILL, AND BECAUSE THAT IT HAS MADE LOSSES FROM THE UNDERTAKING, AND THEREFORE , IT COULD NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNABSORBED DEPREICAITON AND BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES FROM THE WINDMILL DURING THE FIRST T HREE YEARS OF ITS OPERATION, WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT O F OTHER BUSINESS. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUN D THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECION 80IA(4) SUCH LOSSES/UNABSORBED DEPRECIAON CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY AGISNT ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME. IN OT HER WORDS, LOSSES/UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CAN BE SET OFF AGAIN ST THE INCOME GENERATED FROM WIND-MILL ONLY. THE LD.AO, ACCORDINGLY, DISAL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR TAKEN ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12, D ELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. THUS, REVENUE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THIS D ELETION BY THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12 SIMILAR ISSUE WAS AG ITATED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1033 & 1034/AHD/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 6.6.2018 CONCURRED WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND UPHELD THE ORDER. THEREFORE, IN THIS YEAR ALSO, ISSUE BEING ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) MAY BE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISOSNS AND GONE THR OUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE ON HAND, IS SIMI LAR TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12, WHEREIN APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE CHALLENGING ORDERS OF CIT(A) IN DELETING IDENTICAL ADDITIONS MA DE WERE CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE WOULD TAKE NOTE OF THE DISCUSSION AND FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1033 AND 1034/AHD/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 6.6. 2018 FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE ON HAND. IT READS AS UNDER: 8. THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD BU SINESS LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS AND NOTIONALLY SET OF F AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE WINDMILL. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A S PER SECTION 80IA(5) IF THE DEPRECATION AND BUSINESS LOSSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE SELECTION OF IN ITIAL YEAR FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(IV) THEN SUCH UNABSO RBED DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD NOTIONALLY AND SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT YEAR INCOME IN WHICH DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(IV) HAS BE EN CLAIMED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HA S ACCEPTED THE CLAIM AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION. THE FINDINGS RECOR DED BY LD. CIT(A) IN A.Y. 2010-11 ON THIS ISSUE, READ AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE LEGAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON B Y THE APPELLANT AND A.O. FIRST OF ALL IT IS CLARIFIED THA T THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ITS WINDMILL UNIT U/S. 80IA(IV) IS OF RS.41,97,875/- AND NOT OF RS.43,58,4 43/- AS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. ALSO CONSISTS OF THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80G OF THE ACT OF RS .1,60,568/-. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION AND FINDING OF THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. HENC E, DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,60,568/- IS DIRE CTED TO BE DELETED SINCE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 41,97,875/- U/S. 80I A(IV) OF THE ACT, THE A.O HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80IA(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS A S UNDER:- ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 4 'NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) APPLY SH ALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UN DER THAT SUB-SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUC CEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMEN T YEAR, BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR .RE LEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH T HE DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE. THUS, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT PR OVIDES FOR THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(1) OF THE AC T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS IF THE EL IGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSE SSES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMEN T YEAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE A.O. HAS WOR KED OUT THE INCOME FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNIT I.E. WINDMILL AS TABU LATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DEPRECIA TION INCLUDING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 OF THE AC T IN RESPECT OF WINDMILL, THE A.O HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO IN COME FROM WINDMILL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE UNABSORBED LOSSES INCLUDING THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIA TION OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN RESPECT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT BEING WINDMILL HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INCO ME FROM NON- ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THERE IS NO UNABSORBED LOSSES OF THE WINDMILL. THEREFORE, FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(IV) OF THE ACT, N O ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF UNABSORBED LOSSES OF ELIGIBLE BUSINES S ON NOTIONAL BASIS CAN BE MADE AS IF THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF INCOME I.E. ELIGIBLE BUSINESS (IN THE PRESENT CASE WINDMILL). I F THE UNABSORBED LOSSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION LOSS OF EA RLIER YEARS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF NON -ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THEN SUCH NOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ALSO SUPPORTS THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 5 THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 231 CTR 368 (MADRAS) RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT HAS HELD THAT LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION OF THE YEARS EARLIER TO THE INITIAL AS SESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ABSORBED AGAINST THE PROFIT OF OTHER BUSINESS CANNOT BE NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND S ET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS FOR COMPUT ING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA. FURTHER, HON'BLE BAN GALORE ITAT IN THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS RELATING TO WINDMILL, I N THE CASE OF ANIL H. LAD V. DY. CIT (2012) 13 (TRIB.) ITR 581 (BANG.) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPG. MILLS (P) LTD. CITED SUPRA A ND HELD THAT THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT ALONE NEED NOT BE THE INIT IAL YEAR, BUT DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE OPTION EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE YEAR OF CLAIM ALSO CAN BE CONSIDE RED AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT WHERE THE EARLIER DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF, THOSE LOSS AND DEPRECIATION DO NOT GO TO REDUCE THE GROSS TOTAL IN COME OF AN ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80AB AND, TH EREFORE, BRINGING THE NOTIONAL CONCEPT OF CARRYING FORWARD A ND SET-OFF WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF SECTION 80AB AND CONCEPT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMEN T, ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS TO BE DIRECTED TO GRANT DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA FOR THE QUANTUM CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DILUTING THE SAME BY THE NOTIONAL DEDUCTION OF EARLIER LOSS AND DEPRECIATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE. A.O. ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE AND SINCE DIRECT JUDGMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APP ELLANT'S CASE ARE AVAILABLE, THE SAME ARE FOLLOWED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE LEGAL DECISIONS RELIE D UPON BY THE APPELLANT, I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SAME AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IA(IV) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED . 9. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE HAVE FIND THAT THE ISSUE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT REFERR ED IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 340 ITR 477. WE ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 6 DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RELEVANT DISC USSION MADE BY THE HONBLE COURT WHICH READS AS UNDER: '80-IA. (1) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSE SSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (4) (S UCH BUSINESS BEING HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSIN ESS) THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE, A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO HUNDRED PER CENT, O F THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSEC UTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. (2) THE DEDUCTION SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BE CLAIMED BY HIM FOR ANY T EN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF FIFTEEN YEARS BEGINNING FRO M THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AN D BEGINS TO OPERATE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY OR STARTS PROVI DING TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE OR DEVELOPS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK OR DEVELOPS A SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE REFERRED TO IN CLA USE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OR GENERATES POWER OR COMMENCES TRA NSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OR POWER OR UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION AND MODERNISATION OF THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION OR D ISTRIBUTION LINES. (4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO (I) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF (I) DEVELOPING, OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING, OR ( III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRU CTURE FACILITY WHICH FULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : (A) IT IS OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY A CON- SORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANIES (OR BY AN AUTHORITY OR A BOARD OR A CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER BODY ESTABLISHED OR CONS TITUTED UNDER ANY CENTRAL OR STATE ACT) ; (B) IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORI TY OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY FOR (I) DEVELOPING, OR (II) OP ERATING AND MAINTAINING, OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAI NTAINING A NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ; ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 7 (C) IT HAS STARTED OR STARTS OPERATING AND MAINTAIN ING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST APRIL, 1995. (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (1) APPLY SHA LL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UN DER THAT SUB-SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUC CEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMEN T YEAR, BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR REL EVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH T HE DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE.' 17. FROM A READING OF SUB-SECTION (1), IT IS CLEAR THAT IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN AS SESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERT AKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUBSECT ION (4), I.E., REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUC TION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100 PER CENT, OF THE PROFITS AND GA INS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT Y EARS. DEDUCTION IS GIVEN TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THE SAM E IS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION (4). SUB-SECTION (2) PROVIDES OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF 15 YE ARS. OPTION HAS TO BE EXERCISED, IF IT IS NOT EXERCISED, THE AS SESSEE WILL NOT BE GETTING THE BENEFIT. FIFTEEN YEARS IS OUTER LIMIT A ND THE SAME IS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AND BEGINS TO OPERATE ANY INFRA STRUCTURE ACTIVITY, ETC. SUBSECTION (5) DEALS WITH QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION FOR AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE WORDS 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' ARE USED IN SUB-SECTION (5) AND THE SAME IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT 'INITIAL ASSESSM ENT YEAR' EMPLOYED IN SUB-SECTION (5) IS DIFFERENT FROM THE W ORDS 'BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR' REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTIO N (2). THE IMPORTANT FACTORS ARE TO BE NOTED IN SUB-SECTION (5 ) AND THEY ARE AS UNDER : '(1) IT STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHICH MEA NS IT OVERRIDES ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND OTHER P ROVISIONS ARE TO BE IGNORED ; ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 8 (2) IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE QUANTU M OF DEDUCTION; (3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ; (4) IT IS A DEEMING PROVISION; (5) FICTION CREATED THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS T HE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME; AND (6) DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIA L ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEA R.' FROM A READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE E LIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YE AR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEN THE ASSES-S EE EXERCISES THE OPTION, THE ONLY LOSSES OF THE YEARS BEGINNING FROM INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ALONE ARE TO BE BROUGH T FORWARD AND NO LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH WERE A LREADY SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING FORWARD TO A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMEN T IS CONTEMPLATED. IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE REVENUE TO LOOK BACKWARD AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY LOSS OF EARLI ER YEARS AND BRING FORWARD NOTIONALLY EVEN THOUGH THE SAME W ERE SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH E SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS . ONCE THE SET OFF IS TAKEN PLACE IN EARLIER YEAR AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE CANNOT REWORK T HE SET OFF AMOUNT AND BRING IT NOTIONALLY. A FICTION CREAT ED IN SUB-SECTION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATES TO BRING SET OFF AMOUNT NOTIONALLY. THE FICTION IS CREATED ONLY FOR THE LIM ITED PURPOSE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. IN THE PRESENT CASES, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT LOSS ES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALREADY SET OFF AND A DJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE EARLIER YEARS. DURING TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE EXERCISED THE OPTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA(2). IN TAX CASE NOS. 909 OF 2009 AS1 WELL AS 940 OF 2009, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS 2005-06 AND IN TAX CASE NO. 918 OF 2008 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS 2004-0 5. ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 9 DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THERE WERE NO UNABSORBE D DEPRECIATION OR LOSS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKINGS A ND THE SAME WERE ALREADY ABSORBED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. TH ERE IS A POSITIVE PROFIT DURING THE YEAR. THE UNREPORTED J UDGMENT OF THIS COURT CITED SUPRA CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF SUBSECTION (6) OF SECTION 80-1, WHICH IS THE CORRES PONDING PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80-IA. BOTH ARE SIMILARLY WORDED AND, THEREFORE, WE AGREE ENTIRELY WITH THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT CITED SUPRA. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MEWAR OIL AND GENERAL MILLS LTD. (NO . 1) [2004] 271ITR 311 (RAJ) ; [2004] 186 CTR (RAJ) 141, THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ALSO CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF S ECTION 80-1 AND HELD AS FOLLOWS (PAGE 314 OF 271 ITR) : 'HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WHICH FOLLOW ON THE LINE NOTICED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ON FINDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CARRY FORWARD LOSSES OF 1983-84, WHICH COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85, THE RECOMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BY SETTING OFF THE CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR DID NOT SIMPLY ARISE AND ON THE FINDING OF FACT NOTICED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND CHALLENGED BEFORE US, THERE WAS NO ERROR MUCH LESS ANY ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED. THAT QUESTION WOULD HAVE BEEN GERMANE ONLY IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND UNABSORBED DEVELOPMENT REBATE OR ANY OTHER UNABSORBED LOSSES OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ARISING OUT OF THE PRIORITY INDUSTRY AND WHETHER IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR. IT IS NOT A T ALL REQUIRED THAT LOSSES OR OTHER DEDUCTIONS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHOULD BE REOPENED AGAIN FOR COMPUTATION OF CURRENT INCOME UNDER SECTION 80-1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS THEREUNDER. ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 10 IN VIEW THEREOF, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO RECTIFICATION POSSIBLE UNDER SECTION 80-1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALBEIT, FOR REASONS SOMEWHAT DIFFEREN T FROM THOSE WHICH PREVAILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THERE BEING NO CARRY FORWARD OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE HEAD DEPRECIATION OR DEVELOPMENT REBATE WHICH NEEDED TO BE ABSORBED AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR AND, THEREFORE, RECOMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-1 FOR THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL FAILS AND IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.' FROM A READING OF THE ABOVE, THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED THAT LOSSES OR OTHER DEDUCTIONS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHOULD BE REOPENED AGAIN FOR COMPUTATION OF CURRENT INCOME U/S.80-I FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS THEREUNDER. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE SAME. WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 10. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE WOULD INDICATE THAT DEPRECIATION ALREADY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SE T OFF AGAINST THE REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME CANNOT BE NOTI ONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF W INDMILL FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AFTER SELECTION OF INITIAL YEA R FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(IV). IN OTHER WORDS, T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN CHOICE OF 10 CONSECUTIVE YE ARS OUT OF 15 YEARS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(IV). ON CE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED INITIAL YEAR THEN UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES OF THAT YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS COULD BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE IN COME OF THOSE YEARS BEFORE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION ADMISSIB LE U/S.80IA(IV). IN THE PRESENT CASES, ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS BROUGHT FORWARD THE DEPRECIATION OF A.Y. 2007-08, 2 008- 09 ETC, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE REGULAR INCOME. HE BROUGHT FORWARD SUCH DEPRECIATION ON NOT IONAL BASIS, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROPOSITION LAID DO WN BY ITA NO.1140/AHD/2017 11 THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. THE LD. FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE CONTROVERSY A ND RIGHTLY GRANTED THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. WE D O NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HENCE , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED IN BOTH THE YEARS. 6. WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISPARITY OF FACTS IN THE PRE SENT YEAR AS WELL. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, W E CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH MAY, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/05/2019