M/s Hemavathi Power and Light Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 509/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4619 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Bad and doubtful debts; Assessment record; Condonation of delay; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 234B; 115JB; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 509 / BANG/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 07 - 08 M/S. HEMAVATHI POWER AND LIGHT PVT. LTD., # 701 & 702, PRESTIGE MERIDIAN II, NO. 30, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN: AABCH1245R VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) (2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 11 .0 6 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .0 6 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, BANGALORE DATED 01.01.2016 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING THE SET-OFF OF CARR IED FORWARD LOSS OF RS. 1,94,76,157 UNDER A PROCEEDING U/S 154 OF THE A CT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RECTIFYING THE ALLEGED MISTAKE AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE IS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ONE. ITA NO.509/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 8 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 ABOVE, TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION LOSS AS O N 1.4.2006 HAS BECOME NIL AND THEREFORE, NO AMOUNT CAN BE SET-OFF WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115 JB OF THE ACT. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT DENIES ITS LIABILITY TO PAY I NTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B OF THE ACT IN A PROCEEDING U/S 154 OF THE ACT. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR OTHERWISE MODIFY ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS DELAY OF TWO DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN WHICH IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO THE CHANGE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND THEREFORE, IT TOOK S OME TIME TO SETTLE OTHER ESSENTIAL ASPECTS AND HENCE, THIS SMALL DELAY OCCUR RED IN GETTING THE APPROVAL OF THE NEW MANAGEMENT FOR FURTHER ACTION AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, TH IS SMALL DELAY OF TWO DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED. ALTHOUGH THE LD. DR OF REVENUE OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY BUT CONSIDERING TH E FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO CONDONE THIS SMALL DELAY OF TWO DAYS AND THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 4. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JU DGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELI LILLY AND CO. INDIA P. LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2011] 334 ITR 186 (DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN T HAT CASE ALSO, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA NOS. 3 TO 5 OF THIS ORDER. ITA NO.509/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 8 5. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. SHE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 154 OF IT ACT AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY AO THA T AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, IT IS REVE ALED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME U/S. 115JB, THE ENTIRE DEPRECIATION LOSS OF RS. 3,37,17,625/- BEING THE LEAST OF BUSINESS LOSS AND DEPRECIATION LOSS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BOOK PROFIT AND INCOME OF RS. 1,37,25,650/- WAS ASSESSED U/S. 115JB IN THAT YEAR. BUT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08, WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME U/S. 115JB, THE DEPRECIATION LOSS AS PER ACC OUNTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,94,76,156/- WAS CLAIMED AS SET OFF BUT SINCE THE DEPRECIATION LOSS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SET OFF OF IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 AND IT HAS BECOME NIL AFTER SUCH SET OF IN THAT YEAR, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AGAINST THE BOOK PROFIT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THEREFORE THERE WAS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE AO. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE REC TIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S. 154 OF IT ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) AND BEFORE US THAT THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S. 154 IS NOT VALID. ALTHOUGH THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS REJECTED BY C IT(A), BUT BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELI LILLY AND CO. I NDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA). WE REPRODUCE PARAS 2 TO 5 OF THIS JUDGEMENT WHICH ARE RELEVANT AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR THE SAKE OF REA DY REFERENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INCOME TAX RETURN SHOWIN G LOSSES. SINCE LOSSES UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOSS COMPUTED AS PER THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECT ION 115 JA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ), THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE AC T AND WAS COMPLETED ON 7TH MARCH, 2002 AFTER ACCEPTING THE RE TURN AS FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154/143 (1) OF THE ACT AS ACCORDING TO HIM A MISTAK E APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD HAD OCCURRED WHILE ACCEPTING THE RETURN VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 7TH MARCH, 2002. WE MAY POI NT OUT HERE ITA NO.509/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED LOSSES IN EARLIER YE ARS WHICH REMAINED UNABSORBED AND WERE BEING CARRIED FORWARD TO SUCCESSIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. LIKEWISE, THERE WAS UN ABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS WELL. IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION, THER E WERE PROFITS AND AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS JUST ` 80,38,600/- INSTEAD THE FIGURE OF ` 1,39,36,000/- W HICH WAS EARLIER TAKEN AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THUS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PASSED ORDERS DATED 16TH MAY, 2005 THEREBY ALLOWING BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AT ` 80,38,6000/- I NSTEAD OF ` 1,39,36,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ORDER B Y FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE CORRECTED IN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE THE AFORESAID FIGURES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER, WERE INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE UNABSORBE D DEPRECIATION OF ` 1,39,36,000/- WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND ADJUSTED IN THIS YEAR. THE CIT (A), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED SEC OND APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE A O FOR THE INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE ACT BY WAY OF A RECTIFICATION ORDER IN RESPECT OF UNABSORBED DEPREC IATION WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THUS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWER TO TAKE RECOURSE TO THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 3. MR. VOHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT AS SESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE ADJUS TMENT OF ` 1,39,36,000 WAS MADE AGAINST THE PROFITS IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE P REVIOUS YEAR I.E. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THERE WERE P ROFITS AND THE RETURN WAS FILED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND NO T UNDER SECTION 115 JA OF THE ACT. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE WERE UNA BSORBED LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WERE CARRIED FORWARD TO THIS YEAR. HE HAS CLARIFIED THAT IN SO F AR AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, IT WAS ` 1,39,36,000/-. THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WERE SET OFF AGAINST THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WERE MORE THAN 15 CRORES. EVEN AFTER ABSORBING THE ENTIRE PROFITS OF THE YEAR 1999- 2000, AGAINST THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES, LOSSES ST ILL REMAINED UNABSORBED AND THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS NOT EVEN TOUCHED. THIS FIGURE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION I.E . ` 1,39,36,000/- REMAINED AS IT IS AND IT IS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC E, THIS FIGURE WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND THIS IS HOW IN THE RETURNS FILED, THE AMOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPR ECIATION OF ` 1,39,36,000/- WAS SET OFF BEING THE LOWER OF THE TW O NAMELY UNABSORBED LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, HAVI NG REGARD TO CLAUSE (III) TO THE EXPLANATION OF SECTION 115 JA O F THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXERC ISE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECTIFYING THE ORDER WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TREATED ` 1,39,36,000/- AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS EARNED IN THE YEAR 1999- 2000 A ND AFTER SETTING OFF THOSE PROFITS, HE HAS ASSUMED THAT THE CARRIED FORWARD DEPRECIATION WOULD BE ` 80,38,600/-. IT IS ON THIS BASIS, IT IS ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF REC ORD AND RATHER IT ITA NO.509/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 8 DEPENDS ON THE INTERPRETATION THAT HAS TO BE GIVEN TO CLAUSE(III) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115 JA OF THE ACT AND SU CH AN EXERCISE WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. F URTHERMORE, IT IS ARGUED, IT AMOUNTS TO EVEN DISTURBING THE ASSESS MENT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WHICH COULD NOT BE DON E EVEN WHILE MAKING REGULAR ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-0 1. 4. THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF MR. VOHRA CARRIES SU FFICIENT STRENGTH. HOWEVER, IN AN ATTEMPT TO MOLLIFY THE SAME, MR. SAH NI HAD PRODUCED THE COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MAT COMPUTATI ON DONE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THAT YEAR AND ASSURED THAT T HE CARRIED FORWARD DEPRECIATION WAS ` 80,38,600/- ONLY. FOR TH IS PURPOSE, HE REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING COMPUTATION AND GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999- 2000:- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AS ON 01.04.1998 (AS PER BOOKS) (I) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ` 1,39,36,000 (II) BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS (EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION) ` 14,21,44,000 MAT COMPUTATION DONE BY ASSESSEE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ` 58,98,000 LESS: LOWER OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS (` 1,39,36,000) [AS PER EXPLANATION (II) OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 115JA (2)] BOOK PROFIT ` (80,38,000) 5. ON THIS BASIS IT WAS CLAIMED THAT IN THE NEXT AS SESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY CORRECTED T HE ERROR UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BY SETTING OFF ` 80,38 ,600 INSTEAD OF ` 1,39,36,000/. THIS PLEA OF MR. SAHNI IS NOT C ORRECT. MR. SAHNI HAS ONLY PICKED UP THE MAT COMPUTATION DONE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR BUT KNOWING THE FACT THAT IN THAT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED PROFITS AND ACTUALLY IT WAS ONL Y BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WA S ADJUSTED AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF ` 1,39,36,000/- REMA INED AS IT IS WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENT. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COMPUTATION WAS DONE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2 000, 2000-01 AND 2001-2002 IS REPRODUCED BELOW WHICH WOU LD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WA S IN FACT ` 1,39,36,000/- WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WHILE PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER:- 'ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AS ON 01.04.1998 (AS PER BOOKS) (I) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ` 1,39,36,000 (II) BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS (EXCLUDING DEPRE CIATION) ` 14,21,44,000 MAT COMPUTATION DONE BY ASSESSEE PROFI T AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT` 58,98,000 LESS: LOWER OF U NABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS (` 1 ,39,36,000) [AS PER EXPLANATION (II) OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTI ON 115JA (2)] ........................ ITA NO.509/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 8 BOOK PROFIT ` (80,38,000)' AS ON 31.03.199 (AS PER BOOKS) (III) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ` 1,39,36,000 (IV)BUSINESS LOSS (EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION) TO BE CA RRIED FORWARD ` 13,62,46,000* *[` 14,21,44,000-` 58,98,000] ....... ................ AGGREGATE LOSS ` 15,01,82,000 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 MAT COMPUTATION DONE BY ASSESSEE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ` 1,23,00,504 ADD: PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS ` 3,49,292 ADD: PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ADVANCES ` 3,21,696 LESS: LOWER OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS (` 1,39,36,000) [AS PER EXPLANATION (II) OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 115 JA (2)] ..................... BALANCE PROFIT ` (9,64,508) AS ON 31.03.2000 (AS PER BOOKS) (V) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ` 139,36,000 (VI) BUSINESS LOSSES (EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION) TO BE CARRIED FORWARD ` 12,39,45,496* *[` 13,62,46,000-` 1,23,00,504] ... ................... AGGREGATE LOSS ` 13,78,81,496 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 MAT COMPUTATION DONE BY ASSESSEE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ` 1,19,99, 17 7 LESS: LOWER OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINES S LOSS (` 1,39,36,000) [AS PER EXPLANATION (II) OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 115 JA (2)] ...................... BOOK PROFIT ` (19,36,823) AS ON 31.03.2001 ITA NO.509/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 8 (VII) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ` 1,39,36,000 (VIII) BUSINESS LOSSES (EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION) TO BE CARRIED FORWARD ` 11,19,46,319* *[` 12,39,45,496-` 1,19,99, 177] ...................... AGGREGATE LOSS ` 12,58,82,319' 7. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THIS JUDGEM ENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS SIMILAR AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT BROUGHT FORWARD AS UNABSORBED DE PRECIATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT OR NOT. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THIS WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 99-2000 WERE SET OFF AGAINST THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WERE MORE THAN 15 CRORES RUPEES AND EVEN AFTER ABSORBING THE ENTIR E PROFITS OF THE YEAR 1999- 2000, AGAINST THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES, LOSSES ST ILL REMAINED UNABSORBED AND THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS NOT EVEN TOUCHED. THE CLAIM IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ALSO SIMILAR. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THIS WAS THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT THAT IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 1999-2000, PROFIT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT OF RS. 58.98 LAKHS WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS AND THEREFORE, TH E AO TOOK THAT FIGURE FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAINST BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB IN THE OR DER PASSED BY HIM U/S. 154 OF IT ACT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. BUT IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THER E WAS AN APPARENT MISTAKE WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF IT ACT. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH JUNE, 2018. /MS/ ITA NO.509/BANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 8 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.