IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY AR ORA, AM I.T.A. NOS. 894,895 & 896/COCH/200 8 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2004- 05 PATSPIN INDIA LTD., KOCHI-16 [PAN: AABCP 6647G] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RANGE-II, ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 541/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2004- 05 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RANGE- II, ERNAKULAM. VS. PATSPIN INDIA LTD., KOCHI-16 [PAN: AABCP 6647G] (REVENUE -APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE -RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI V.SATHYANARAYANAN, CA REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.THATAI, CIT-DR O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS, ON BEING HEARD BY THE REGULAR BENCH . LED TO A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE TWO MEMBERS CONSTITUTING THE SAME ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION FOR EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE RELEVANT YEARS. WHILE THE AM, WHO PROPOSED THE ORDER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH W AS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF SECTION 10B(6) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT', HEREINAFTER), THE JM HELD A DIFFERENT VIEW. 2. THE MATTER STOOD HEARD BY THE HONBLE VICE-PRESI DENT, BANGALORE ZONE (ACTING AS THIRD MEMBER U/S. 255(4) OF THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 16.7.2010, THE LD. THIRD MEMBER HAS DECIDED ITA.NOS. 894,895 & 8 96/COCH/2008 & 541/COCH /2009 2 THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LD . JM VIDE PARAS 17 TO 19 OF HIS ORDER. THE MATTER HAS NOW BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH FOR PASSING AN ORDER BY IT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAJORITY VIEW, THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF UNIT A FOR A.Y. 1994-95 TO 1996-97 AND COULD BE SET OFF AG AINST ITS ASSESSABLE INCOME FOR THE A.YS 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2006-07. LI KEWISE, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF UNIT B FOR A.Y. 1997-98 COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST TH E TAXABLE INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07, DECIDING THE SAID ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN ST THE REVENUE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE OF VIEW ON ANY OTHER ISS UE ARISING FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE SAID APPEALS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS. 4. THE APPEALS FOR A.YS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 DO NOT CONTAIN ANY OTHER ISSUE. WHILE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05 CONTAINS TWO OTH ER ISSUES, PRESSED FOR ITS GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 AND WHICH STANDS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL PER PARAS 9 AND 11 OF ITS ORDER BY RESTORING THE MATTER WITH APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS, BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY RESPECTIVELY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2001-02 (I.T.A. NO. 894/COCH/2008 AND FOR A.Y. 2002-03 (I.T.A. NO. 895/COCH/2008 ARE ALLOWED AND THAT FOR A.Y. 2004-05 (I.T.A. NO.896/COCH/2008 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA.NOS. 894,895 & 8 96/COCH/2008 & 541/COCH /2009 3 6. COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (I.T.A. NO. 541/COCH/2009), THE SAME AGAIN RAISES A SINGLE ISSUE, I.E., WHICH STANDS DEC IDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY MAJORITY VIEW. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJ AY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED : 31ST AUGUST 2010 GJ COPY TO: 1. PATSPIN INDIA LTD. PALAL TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, ERN AKULAM, KOCHI-16. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), RANGE-II, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KO CHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R./I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR) ITA.NOS. 894,895 & 8 96/COCH/2008 & 541/COCH /2009 4