DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF JNCOME TAX, CIRCEL-3 , NAGPUR V. M/S. ACC NIHON CASTING LT, NAGPUR

ITA 249/NAG/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-3, Nagpur as the appellant and M/s. ACC Nihon Casting Limited as the respondent. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur's order which permitted the assessee to carry forward business losses and set off unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years (1995-96 to 1999-2000). The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by applying the amended provisions of section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the Finance Act 2001, retrospectively. The Tribunal, however, found the CIT(A)'s decision to be in line with established judicial precedents, including decisions by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the assessee's position.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136595 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Pioneer Aisa Packing (P) Ltd., CIT vs. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PUNE BENCHES : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 Assessment Year 2008-2009 The DCIT, Circle-3, Room No.302, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur – 440 001. Maharashtra. vs. M/s. ACC Nihon Casting Limited, Plot No.A-1/2, Butibori Industrial Area, Wardha Road, Ruikhairi, Nagpur – 441 122. PAN AACCA4961B Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR For Assessee : Shri Abhay Agrawal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 30.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2008- 2009, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s Order No.CIT(A)-2/ 103/2014-15, dated 13.08.2018, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 2. The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in allowing claim of assessee to carry forward of business loss and set off unabsorbed depreciation Rs.20,19,09,580/- relating to earlier years i.e. 1995- 96 to AY 1999-2000 contrary to judgment in the case of CIT -vs- Pioneer Aisa Packing (P) Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 1981 in which it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1/4/1997 could be set off against the business income or income under any other head for AY 1997-98 and seven subsequent AYs. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur has erred in interpreting the amended provisions of section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Finance Act 2001. 3. Any other ground which may be raised during the course of hearing.” 3. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reversing the assessment findings thereby accepting the assessee’s claim of carry forward of business loss and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation in question pertaining to the assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 as under : 3 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 4 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 5 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 6 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 4. Mr. Kanojiya vehemently argued in favour of the Revenue’s pleadings that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in accepting the assessee’s foregoing carry forward of business losses and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation claim thereby applying the amended provisions in sec.32(2) vide Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect. We find no substance in Revenue’s instant sole grievance once it has come on record that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd., [2019] 103 taxmann.com 31 (Bom.) has already declined the department’s arguments. The same has also been upheld in hon’ble apex court’s decision in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 32 (SC). That being the case, we find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance. Rejected accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28 th September, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-2, Nagpur. 4. The PCIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. 7 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018 S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.09.2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.09.2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Author .09.2023 J.M. 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member .09.2023 A.M. 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS .09.2023 Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on .09.2023 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of Order .09.2023 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk .09.2023 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order