DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI V. MAHARASHTRA HYBIRD SEEDS CO.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4482/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA P YADAVDR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4482/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ADDL. CIT-1(2), ROOM NO.530,5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S MAHARASTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD. RASHAM BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, 78, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%& ' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AAACM2809C # / REVENUE BY SHRI AKHILENDRA P. YADAV-DR $%& ' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI HIRO RAI ( #) * ' + / DATE OF HEARING : 30/03/2015 * ' + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/03/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 28/03/2012, OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, M UMBAI, ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT UNABSORBED DEPRECIA TION OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 SHOULD BE SE T OFF M/S MAHARASTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD . 2 WITH THE CURRENT YEARS INCOME I.E. BEYOND EIGHT ASS ESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 32(2) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI AKHILENDRA P. YADAV , LD. DR, STRONGLY DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ADVANCING HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH A RE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI HIRO RAI, BROADLY DE FENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE IS COVERED IN ITS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS DCIT (254 ITR 244) (GUJ.) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIO NS WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PAPER BOOK (LIST OF CASES ) FILED BEFORE US. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED GROSS TOTAL INCOME O F RS.15,29,66,298/- WHICH WAS SET OFF AGAINST CARRY F ORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND SET OF F UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CARRY FORWARD STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2006-07. THE STAND O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUCH SET OFF IS NOT ALLOWABLE . THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 29/11/2011, REWORKE D THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CARRIED FORWARD. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SECTION 3 2(2) OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 ALONGWITH CIRCULAR M/S MAHARASTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD . 3 NO.14 OF 2001, ISSUED BY CBDT WAS CONSIDERED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE A FORESAID CIRCULAR AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MO TORS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) FROM HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT A S MENTIONED IN PARA 3.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES/DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS, AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT AGAINST THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, PRE FERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY HONBLE APEX COURT BY CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ARVIND M ILLS LTD. VS ACWT 270 ITR 469 (GUJ.), CALCUTTA DISCOUNT COMPANY VS ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC), GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. V S ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC), ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VS DCIT (253 ITR 474)(CAL.), PRIXIT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT 352 ITR 349 (GU J.), TOLIN RUBBERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT 264 ITR 439 (KER.), ETC. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION D RAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IT IS AFFIRMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 30/03/2015. /0 * 12 30 /0 3 /2015 * ) 7 SD/ - (N.K. BILLAIYA) SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER M/S MAHARASTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD . 4 ( ) MUMBAI; 1 DATED : 30/03/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 89:; / THE APPELLANT 2. <=:; / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / / ( >' ( 89 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / / ( >' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. @#A <'$ , / 89+ 8$ , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. B% C) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, =@9' <' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI