CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1937/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3960 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S V JOSHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 234B; 32; 147

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - C BENCH. . . , / , BEFORE S/SH. B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & RA JENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1937/MUM/2012, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LTD. B-13, PRABHU KRUPA HOUSING SOCIETY, NANDA PARKAR MARG, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,VILE PARLE(E) MUMBAI-400057. VS. DCIT 8(1) MUMBAI. PAN: AAACD3658C ( #$ / APPELLANT ) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT ) #$ #$ #$ #$ ' ' ' ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.V. JOSHI %&#$ ( ' / RESPONDENT BY : ! ! ! ! ( (( ( )* )* )* )* / DATE OF HEARING : 17-07-2013 +,' ( )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-07-2013 ! ! ! ! , 1961 ( (( ( 254(1) )-) )-) )-) )-) . . . . ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M. CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.20-01-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-1 6,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I)THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED I N NOT CONSIDERING THE B/F UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM AY 1995-96 TO AY 1998-99 AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,57 ,26,751/- TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FOR AY 2007-08. HE HAS APPLIED THE PROVISIONS AS APPLICABL E TO AY 1995-96 TO AY 1998-99 WHEREAS ASSESSMENT WAS FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 AND SUCH PROVISIONS APPLIC ABLE FOR THE AY 2007-08 SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON JUDGMENT GIVEN IN CASE OF M/S . JAI USHIN LIMITED VS. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI AIT-2008-242-ITAT I.T.A.NO.3412/DEL/2006. CONSEQUENTLY, INTEREST WAS CHARGED U/S 234B & 234C AND DEMAND ADJUSTED AGAINST REFUND DUE FOR AY 2008-09. (II) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND, V ARY OR ALTER INCLUDING BY SUBSTITUTION ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS THEY OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES MAY THINK FIT FACTS OF THE CASE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 24.04.2011 ASSESSEE-COMPANY R EQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) TO PASS AN ORDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS.AO FOUND THAT FOR THE AY 2007-08,THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED TO AL LOW UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS PER THE CHART GIVEN BELOW: SR. NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (RS.) 1. 1995-96 16,83,238/- 2. 1996-97 70,82.969/- 2 ITA NO .1937/MUM/2012,(AY-2007-08) CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LTD. 3. 1997-98 1,42,70,398/- 4. 1998-99 26,90,146/- 5. 1999-2000 1,09,60,146/- 6. 2000-01 77,67,099/- 7. 2001-02 26,99,200/- 8. 2002-03 20,53,876/- 9. 2003-04 19,28,913/- 2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,A O HELD THAT THE LAW APPLICABLE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED AND SET OFF W.E.F.1 ST APRIL 1997 PROVIDED THAT IF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECI A - TION ALLOWANCE COULD NOT BE WHOLLY SET OFF UNDER CL AUSE (I) OR (II) OF SECTION 32,THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE NOT SO SET OFF SHOULD BE CARRIED FORWA RD TO THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEARS.HE FURTHER HELD THAT IF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE WAS NOT SO SET OFF COULD NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD MORE THAN 8 ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE AY FOR THE AFORESAID ALLOWANCE WAS FIRST COMPUTED.HE FURTHER HELD THAT BY VIRTUE OF TH E ABOVE PROVISION,AS APPLICABLE FOR THE AYS UPTO AY 2001-02 THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIAT ION OF EARLIER YEARS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CURRENT DEPRECIATION AND THEREFORE SUCH UNABSORB ED DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD BEYOND EIGHT YEARS.FINALLY,THE AO D ISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH REGARD TO UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION UP TO AY 199 8-99. 2.1. ASSESEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY(FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED BY THE AO U/S.154 OF THE ACT,HE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE ACT 2001 WAS A DEEMING PROVISION, THAT A DEEMING PROVISION COULD NOT BE EXTENDED BEYO ND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED, THAT SECTION 32(2) WAS A SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION AND HENCE WAS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THAT IT APPLY ONLY FOR AY 2002-03ONWARDS,THAT THE SEC.32(1) DEALT WITH DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR,THAT IF DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR A PARTICULA R YEAR U/S 32(I) COULD NOT BE GIVEN FULL EFFECT DEEMING PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION WOULD APPLY.FINAL LY, HE HELD THAT,CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT,THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION A LLOWANCE COULD NOT BE SET OFF AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) WERE AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2001W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2002, THAT BY THE SAID AMENDMENT POSITION AS EXISTED PRIOR TO 01.04.1997 WAS RESTORED, THAT UPTO AY 1996 -97 UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS TREATED AS CURRENT YEARS DEPRECIATION,THAT SAME WAS ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FROM ANY OTHER HEAD,THAT ONLY A LIMITED PERI OD THE CARRYING FORWARD WAS RESTRICTED TO EIGHT YEARS,THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO SET OFF UNABSOR BED DEPRECIATION AS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION FILED U/S.154 OF THE ACT.HE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF CRAIGMORE PLANTATIONS INDIA LIMITED( 253ITR447).HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. DATED 23.08.2012.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND FAA.HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF TIMES GUARANTY LTD. (ITA NO. 4917 & 4918/MUM/2008-AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 (131 TTJ) (MUM) (S.B. 257). 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECOR D.IT APPEARS THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION, AO AND THE FAA HAVE NOT C ONSIDERED THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE SEC.32(2) OF THE ACT IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. PERUSAL OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 SHOW THAT PRIOR TO 01- 04-1997,UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE PREVIOUS YE AR USED TO BE CLAIMED AS CURRENT DEPRECIATION AND WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET-OFF AGAINST INCOME F ROM ANY OTHER HEAD. BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT, W.E.F. 01-0 4-1997,TREATMENT OF UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION 3 ITA NO .1937/MUM/2012,(AY-2007-08) CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LTD. UNDERWENT A CHANGE-BECAUSE AS PER THE AMENDED PROVI SIONS UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE PART OF CURRENT DEPRECIATION AN D THE PERIOD AVAILABLE FOR SET-OFF OF SUCH UN- ABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM PROFITS OF SUBSEQUENT YE ARS WAS RESTRICTED TO EIGHT YEARS. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT DURING EARLIER PERIOD(UP TO 31.03.1 997) NO SUCH TIME LIMIT WAS PRESCRIBED.VIDE FINANCE ACT,2001 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2)WER E ONCE AGAIN AMENDED AND A RESULT THE POSITION AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO 01-04-1997 WAS REST ORED BACK. FROM THE AMENDMENTS TO FINANCE ACT,2001 IT IS CLEAR THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS TO ALLOW UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD BEYOND PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS. FOR THE AY UN DER CONSIDERATION,CORRECT LAW APPLICABLE WAS THE LAW THAT PREVAILED AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL OF THAT AY.IN OUR OPINION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AMENDED PROVISIONS WERE A PPLICABLE AND AO WAS SUPPOSED TO CALCULATE THE UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT . IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS NO BAR TO ALLOW THE UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE EARLIER YEARS IN TH E AY 2007-08. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND D ECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ON 23.08.2012.,IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. IN FOLLOWING MANNER : 30.THE LAST QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATIO N IS THAT WHETHER THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO AY. 1997-98 COULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CA RRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AFTER A PERIOD OF EIGHT Y EARS OR IT WOULD BE GOVERNED BY SECTION 32 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2001? THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 IS THAT SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 1996 W.E.F. AY. 1997-98 AND THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIA TION FOR THE A.Y. 1997-98 COULD BE CARRIED FORWARD UP TO THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 8 YEARS FROM THE YEAR I N WHICH IT WAS FIRST COMPUTED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, 8 YEARS EXPIRED IN THE A.Y. 2005 -06 AND ONLY TILL THEN, THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE T O CLAIM UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF A.Y.1997-98 FOR BEING CA RRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FOR TH E A.Y. 2005-06. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.43,60,22,158/- FOR A .Y. L997-98, WHICH WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BEING CARRIED F ORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2006- 07. 31. PRIOR TO THE FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 1996 THE UNABS ORBED DEPRECIATION FOR ANY YEAR WAS ALLOWED TO BE CARRY FORWARD INDEFINITELY AND BY A DEEMING FICTION BECAME ALLOWANCE OF THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEA R. THE FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 1996 RESTRICTED THE CARRY F ORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND SET-OFF TO A LIMIT OF 8 YEARS, FROM THE A.Y.1997-98. CIRCULAR NO.762 DATED 18.2.1998 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) IN THE FORM OF EXPLANATORY NOTE S CATEGORICALLY PROVIDED, THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR TO WHI CH FULL EFFECT CANNOT BE GIVEN IN THAT PREVIOUS YEA R SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD AND ADDED TO THE DEPRECIAT ION ALLOWANCE OF THE NEXT YEAR AND BE DEEMED TO BE PART THEREOF. 32.SO, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OF A.Y . 1996-97 WOULD BE ADDED TO THE ALLOWANCE OF A.Y. 1997-98 AND THE LIMITATION OF 8 YEARS FOR THE CARRY -FORWARD AND SET-OFF OF SUCH UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N WOULD START FROM A.Y. L997-98. X X X X X X X X X X X X X 36.THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES IN THE CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID CIRCULAR READS AS UNDER:- MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEPRECIATIO N 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 T AKES PLACE SO OFTEN, THE ACT HAS DISPENSED WITH THE RESTRICTION OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SE T OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE ACT HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GA INS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 SH ALL BE MANDATORY. 30.3 UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS, NO DEDUCTION FO R DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED ON ANY MOTOR CAR MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE INDIA UNLESS IT IS USED (I) IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING IT ON HIRE FOR TOURISTS, O R (II) OUTSIDE IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OR PROFESSI ON IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. 30.4 THE ACT HAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE ON ALL IMPORTED MOTOR CARS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER 4 ITA NO .1937/MUM/2012,(AY-2007-08) CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LTD. 1 ST APRIL, 2001. 30.5 THESE AMENDMENTS WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM THE 1 ST APRIL, 2002, AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND SUBSEQU ENT YEARS. 37.THE CBDT CIRCULAR CLARIFIES THE INTENT OF THE AM ENDMENT THAT IT IS FOR ENABLING THE INDUSTRY TO CON SERVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO REPLACE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND ACCORDINGLY THE AMENDMENT DISPENSES WITH THE RESTRICTION OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OF F OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND SUBSEQU ENT YEARS. THIS MEANS THAT ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ON 1ST DAY OF APR1, 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 LEGISLATUR E BEEN TO ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE WORKED OUT IN A.Y. 1997-98 ONLY FOR EIGHT SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMEN T OF SECTION 32(2) BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 IT WOULD HAVE INCORPORATED A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT. HOWEV ER, 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 TA XING 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 E NTITLED FOR A BENEFIT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE SECTION BY TH E CLEAR WORDS USED IN THE SECTION, THE BENEFIT ACCR UING TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. HOWEVER, CIRCULAR NO .14 OF 2001 HAD CLARIFIED THAT UNDER SECTION 32(2), IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROF ESSION FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIA TION UNDER SECTION 32 SHALL BE MANDATORY. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 WOULD ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION A LLOWANCE AVAILABLE IN THE A.Y. 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02 TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SU CCEEDING YEARS, AND IF ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR PART THEREOF COULD NOT BE SET OFF TILL THE A.Y. 2002-03 THEN IT WOULD BE CARRIED FORWARD TILL THE T IME IT IS SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 38.THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT, CURRENT DEPRECIA TION IS DEDUCTIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE FROM THE INCO ME OF THE BUSINESS TO WHICH IT RELATES. IF SUCH DEPRECIATION AMOUNT IS LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS OF THAT BUSINESS, THEN SUCH EXCESS COMES FOR ABSORPTION FRO M THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR BUSINESS, IF ANY, CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IF A BALANCE IS LEFT EVEN THEREAFTER, THAT BECOMES DEDUC TIBLE FROM OUT OF INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER HEADS OF INCOME DURING THAT YEAR. IN CASE TH ERE IS A STILL BALANCE LEFT OVER, IT IS TO BE TREATED A S UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND IT IS TAKEN TO THE NE XT SUCCEEDING YEAR. WHERE THERE IS CURRENT DEPRECIATIO N FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS ADDED TO THE CURRENT DEPRECIATION F OR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR AND IS DEEMED AS PART THERE OF. IF, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CURRENT DEPRECIATION FOR S UCH SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BECOMES THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH SUCCEED ING YEAR. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ON 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 2(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001. AND ONCE THE CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001 CLARIFIED THAT THE RESTRICTI ON OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN DISPENSED WITH, THE UNABSORBE D DEPRECIATION FROM A.Y.1997-98 UPTO THE A.Y.2001- 02 GOT CARRIED FORWARD TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 AND BECAME PART THEREOF, IT CAME TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINAN CE ACT, 2001 AND WERE AVAILABLE FOR CARRY FORWARD A ND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WITHOUT ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER. THEREFORE, REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA, EFFECTIV E GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED / )0 !/) 1 2 ( - 3) ( ) 45 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JULY,2013 . . ( +,' 6 7! 24 , 2013 , ( - 8 5 ITA NO .1937/MUM/2012,(AY-2007-08) CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LTD. SD/- SD/- ( . 9 9 9 9 . . B.R.MITTAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 7! /DATE: 24 TH JULY,2013 SK . . . . ( (( ( %): %): %): %): ;:') ;:') ;:') ;:') / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / #$ 2. RESPONDENT / %&#$ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / :>- %)! , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ - ? &:) &:) &:) &:) %) %)%) %) //TRUE COPY// .! / BY ORDER, @ / 4 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI